This all over oil too?
2007-01-09 11:35:45 · 20 answers · asked by BAARAAACK 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
This is great stuff - for weeks and weeks, the liberals have been spewing out questions about why we aren't helping in Darfer - and then answering their own question with snide remarks, such as there's no oil there - and now we pound the radical butchers and we're war mongers again!!
Ya gotta love them libs!
2007-01-09 12:00:21 · answer #1 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
i do no longer comprehend why i'm answering this question, because of the fact there is no hazard i gets "terrific answer". Realistically, Obama might meet with significant individuals of his cabinet, the CIA, the FBI, leaders of the attacking u . s . (if available), and every physique else that should have suggestions pertinent to the placement. He might talk the fee/benefit of a counter attack, or maybe he might pursue a diplomatic answer to the priority (reparations, treaty, and so on). i might desire that he does not have a knee-jerk reaction to the priority, and that he's taking in spite of direction mandatory to "restore" the wear and tear. My desire is that he does not go at once to conflict and not employing a 2d thought. If conflict replaced into the terrific reaction, i might desire that he might concentration our u . s .'s potential on defeating the enemy rather than beginning a 2d, unrelated conflict. This has much less to do with me being liberal (which i'm) and extra to do with me attempting to define the point of conflict (what that's used for and what it could accomplish). regrettably, if the rustic have been Muslim, Obama might experience extra tension to respond militarily. we've a sore spot while it is composed of Muslims best now (in the comparable way we did with the eastern and Germans in the 1st 0.5 of the twentieth century), and this could reason us to react in an exaggerated and irrational way... Obama coated.
2016-11-28 00:41:38 · answer #2 · answered by helmkamp 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Conveniently timed to cover his announcement tomorrow night about sending more troops into Iraq I am angry that he did not notify anyone in Congress He thinks he will get this past Nancy Pelosi Something stinks about this whole thing I noticed about a week and a half ago that there was a brief note about the USS Eisenhower steaming toward the coast of Africa He has planned this all along
2007-01-09 11:47:45 · answer #3 · answered by silent watcher 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
The liberals don't want to talk about them because:
They prove that Bush is still going after terrorists world-wide. That he is not ignoring them in a quest to only steal oil and give $ to his cronies.
They remind people of all the terrorist attacks that Clinton ignored and did nothing about. Those killed were responsible for bombing US embassies during the Clinton Presidency. Clinton did nothing.
2007-01-09 11:39:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
I think it's yet another example of How the U.S. interferes with other countries.
At least some people paid attention this time. Most of the time people don't pay attention, then they get all whiny when something like 9/11 happens, as if it's just out of the blue.
2007-01-09 11:39:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Is this the Presidents response? If he were truly concerned about terrorism why are there no soldiers being sent to confront the group behind 9/11?
2007-01-09 11:40:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes, Bush is going to build a pipeline through Somalia up through Afghanistan and across Siberia to Alaska. Everyone knows that. This is why Clinton was a better president. When our solderers were killed and dragged through the streets of Mogadishu Clinton was a man about it, the kind of man us Democrats and liberals like, a gay man, he pussied out, we respect that.
2007-01-09 11:40:07 · answer #7 · answered by Liberal 1 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Their flags are flying at half staff for all their brothers-in-arms they lost today.
But on a brighter note - it IS Africa and liberals LOVE Africa.
Let's adopt some kids and stay in the tourist hot spot Namibia for some fun and recreation. Bono, are you in?
2007-01-09 11:54:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think it's the closest we've been to actually fighting terror in about 2 years...
I would still rather go directly after Osama... but this is actually al-queda... and I fully support any action against them...
what's the reason he actually decided to actually fight terror again?
but this is just air strikes... right? this is about as much as Clinton did... if not a little less...
2007-01-09 11:40:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Blame Bush. They do for everything else. This is the easy thing for them to do. A lot easier I guess, than blaming who's really responsible. Go USA
2007-01-09 11:42:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋