Actually, if you bothered with facts instead of left-wing talking points, you'd have learned that it is NOT the presence of US troops that is fueling the insurgency.
If you can't even get the basic facts right, why should anybody give any credence whatsoever to your opinion?
2007-01-11 01:39:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
What Peace in Iraq is going to take is the world press saying: If the Iraqis really want the coalition out, the coalition must believe the local government can stand on their own. This would look like peace & the locals investing in their own economy.
After about a year the locals should use what the coalition gave them - THE VOTE - & tell them what they want. It would take another 6 months for the coalition to get the troops home.
If the locals are still foolish enough to want a civil war, the coalition couldn't return in time to stop it. There is nothing CIVIL about a civil war!
As long as the press doesn't voice this reality they only promote voilence. They need to lead by offering solutions. It is easy to be a NAY SAYER. As long as the press & the liberals say we are going to loose (leave) we give no hope to the locals of having a better life. This leaves the war our fight over their oil. The press & the democrats are voicing a self fofilling prophecy.
2007-01-11 02:16:20
·
answer #2
·
answered by viablerenewables 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
At least the repubs will take some action on issues. My belief is that the generals on the ground should call the shots as they are trained for it. I don't want a career politician deciding how to win a war but we both know that is not how it works. Even during the early days of the war the high ranking generals on the ground said they needed more troops. This is one of GW's Early mistakes, he should have sent the extras sooner.
2007-01-11 01:41:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by joevette 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
If we bring the troops home before this war has been won the terrorists will follow them home. Here do you want the terrorists to operate? It has taken 4 years for them to kill 3000 Americans in Iraq. It only took them 1 day to kill 3000 Americans in the USA. Where do you want the war to be fought? IN Iraq where the only Americans at risk is the military (and that is their job) or here in the USA where you daughter is the target?
2007-01-11 01:37:25
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
let's have a look at in the journey that they are continually incorrect. Jimmy Carter, Democrat, his tremendous administration brought about stagflation contained in the USA of a. He has Algiers Accords to his credit. 50 billion funds is given to Egypt each and every year so as that they don't attack Israel, from none except Carter. Now for the newest and nicely acceptable information clip from Yahoo information: Critics of the providence revenue tax say it proved to be counterproductive at the same time as it changed into very last put in position contained in the U. S. in 1980 in the course of the perfect 12 months of President Jimmy Carter's administration. those critics say the degree triggered oil organizations to diminish decrease back on relatives production at the same time as failing to develop as a lot in tax gross sales as lawmakers envisioned. It changed into repealed in 1988 in the course of the Reagan administration. Obama suggested he might want to search for a reform of the U.S. tax code if elected in November, saying the present tax equipment is a "10,000-web page monstrosity." In a bid for the older electorate from whom rival Clinton drew help earlier leaving the race for the Democratic nomination on Saturday, Obama suggested he might want to search for to get rid of earnings taxes for any retiree making less than $50,000 in accordance to 12 months. The take care of Republicans is they are continually fixing issues the Democrats destroy. The Early Years 1923 3 years after females received the right to vote, the equivalent Rights modification (era) is gifted in Congress with information from Senator Curtis and representative Anthony, both Republicans. that's authored with information from Alice Paul, head of the nationwide females's party, who led the suffrage marketing campaign. Anthony is the nephew of suffragist Susan B. Anthony. apparently it changed into Republicans that took to job females's Rights not Democrats.
2016-12-02 03:09:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Cut & Run is not the right answer - it is SURRENDER!
Talking to Iran is not the right answers - It is negotiating with Terrorists!
Decisions based on Public Opinion is not the right answer - War is not a popularity contest, it is based on intelligence that public is not aware off.
What is Libs going to do in 2008 - they ran on the premise that "Bush Lied, Kids Died". With out bush, what is going to be their talking point ?
2007-01-11 01:37:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by Ro! 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
Because the Democrats does nothing on Iraq. The Democrats prefer to stay home and let the terrorists attack US.
2007-01-11 01:30:07
·
answer #7
·
answered by Scouser7674 4
·
4⤊
1⤋
Why are democrats such appeasers?
Why do democrats cut and run every war they get involve in?
Why are democrats such defeatist?
Why doe democrats project so much negativism in everything?
2007-01-11 01:35:15
·
answer #8
·
answered by Ynot! 6
·
5⤊
0⤋
The money Darth Cheney and his war-profiteering cartel makes through Halliburton speaks volumes. The foot soldier Republican tools fall in line easily thereafter.
2007-01-11 01:28:35
·
answer #9
·
answered by Silent Kninja 4
·
0⤊
6⤋
Why is your question a personal attack?
2007-01-11 01:29:59
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
1⤋