The insurgents are not terrorists. They were ordinary Iraqi citizens - shopkeepers and schoolteachers - before the invasion.
A FOREIGN power invaded their land without cause.
If that happened here - I guess I would be an insurgent too. Wouldn't you?
2007-01-10 13:24:43
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋
If it is partially a puppet war put on by Iran/Syria (And I agree it is), then as I've said before, why fight them in an enviroment where we can't distinguish them from those fighting a civil war?
It's true we are fighting insurgents funded by outside groups; we just can't defeat them that way. While I do remember that the President mentioned cutting off the flow of support from Iran/Syria, it didn't seem to be a major part of his plan.
Democrats disagree about the nature of the war and the abilities and needs of the Iraqi government. The Democratic Response, however, did not so much as twist the speech as refute its assertions.
The war in Iraq, as you said, is being fought against two groups. One group needs to continue preparing to take over, with the US gradually weaning them off our generous resources. The other needs to be cut off from its masters, left to be hunted down. Either way, the defeat of both groups requires at least a rerouting of troops to make better use of the President's increased deployment.
2007-01-10 14:33:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by MaybePOTUS 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Personally I dont like Democrats and I didnt understand what you said the way you said it but I think that I know what your trying to say and I have to agree with you because Iraq has enough problems as it is and for us to go over there and just give them even more problems and make it seem like they're causing all of the problems is pretty bold and the sad part is that 1/4 of Americans believe that bull s***. Im a rupublican (well as soon as I turn 18 anyway) but Bush is a very very......i dont know if theres a word for it so im not gonna try and guess it but most people should be able to guess the picture by now.
2007-01-10 13:29:18
·
answer #3
·
answered by Ky_bello 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
The essence of political correctness is the censoring, no longer basically of speech, yet of all theory. seem on the present climate in both the documents and the leisure media, the position in consumer-friendly words politically striking statements are allowed, inspite of ways factually incorrect they oftentimes are. Conversely, all politically incorrect options are fastidiously censored, regardless of in a good number of cases being factually striking. it truly is maximum obtrusive in practise the position at degrees below college, and oftentimes even there, the curriculum is fairly a lot without extremely info. Claiming that proposing info is an identical as rote gaining understanding of they have been replaced by way of indoctrination in politically striking theories that the scholars are taught to believe in without being given adequate options to analise the theories for themselves. the reason that the U.S. has the worst practise device contained in the industrialized international is that ever because the leftists of the Nineteen Sixties began to take over practise all questioning by way of scholars has been suppressed in pick of senseless parroting of computer dogma. It now compares to practise in Nazi Germany at its worst. All topics, from technological information to social learn are subordinate to political and social dogma, no matter if the overall public of extremely info could be deleted or distorted because they are going to contradict the computer reviews of the educators. i have experienced this myself with my daughters practise. She's had total gadgets in social learn dedicated to Harriet Tubman and Sacajawea, yet were advised no longer some thing about the contributions of George Washington and Benjamin Frankin Her American historic previous instructor theory Alexander Hamilton become between the Presidents. adequate stated, i might want to cite examples at more effective length than the unique, overly lengthy question.
2016-12-28 16:03:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
well... the problem is... they all aren't wearing color-coordinated uniforms... so we don't really always know exactly who we are fighting or who is shooting at us.... and what their motivation, ethnicity and funding is...
of course sometimes it's more clear cut, based on who and when they are attacking... but often... it's very confusing who is who... and who is fighting who... and who is supporting who...
and I would be willing to bet that the insurgents are involved in Iraqi civil war activities, since it would destabilize the nation, causing more problems... which complicates matters even more...
from what I understand... everyone is almost fighting everyone else... which is a very messy situation to try and fix... no matter how you cut it...
2007-01-10 13:41:28
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think the real question is why is America in Iraq? They went in to find weapons of mass destruction, did they do that? No. There is no point for America to be there. Face it you guys voted for a moron. I'm surprised the guy can tie his own shoes in the morning. Americans are probably the most hated people in the world and you wonder why? The whole world thinks this they just dont have the guts to tell you.
2007-01-10 13:35:15
·
answer #6
·
answered by Kurtis A 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
The only twist, is that Bush's insistence that the war on terror is in Iraq. The foreign terrorist didn't arrive in Iraq till after the U.S. toppled Saddam. The war in Iraq is a religious civil war that has been going on for 1,375 years, we should not try to be the referee.
2007-01-10 13:23:39
·
answer #7
·
answered by kniggs 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Some democrats not all. Obama made more sense in his reaction, notably for his stance on Iraq`s political structure.
2007-01-10 18:44:43
·
answer #8
·
answered by dingdong 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because that is all the Dumocrats can do. They can't go with the truth. They are going to overtax us, over socialize us, weaken this country militarily and when you are in line for gasoline and terrorism is out in the streets you will wish George Bush could have a third term.
2007-01-10 13:30:29
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
In response to whoever said you posted before the speech was over: So what, I heard them twisting the speech yesterday. I hadn't even heard when the speech was scheduled before then.
2007-01-10 13:40:52
·
answer #10
·
answered by STEVEN F 7
·
0⤊
0⤋