http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070111/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us_iraq
2007-01-11 09:19:10 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
They are part of the problem, I think it was a foregone conclusion they wouldn't like any real attempt at stopping the insurgency.
2007-01-11 09:23:41 · update #1
to the earybirdy: Bulabate is just frustrated because I always out him as a foreigner despite his protests that he is American; he clearly isn't yet maintains the charade.
2007-01-11 10:15:00 · update #2
Of course they denounce it, they're the ones sending killers into Iraq to kill American troops, and Iraqi women and children.
Only bleeding heart, tree hugging, left wing liberals care what they say anyway. Why is anyone giving time of day to terrorists?
2007-01-11 09:25:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
Yes, they are a big part of the problem, and the Democrats are in bed with them and are already talking about cutting funding to our people over there. This is Viet Nam all over again, Congress messing with something they shouldn't be messing with. You cant run a war from Washington DC. You have to give the Generals the tools and the equipment to do the job there, without you interfering.
2007-01-11 09:26:29 · answer #2 · answered by George C 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
IRAN not Iraq & Syria would denounce the Easter Bunny, or any one person place or thing, not just Bush. They have been fighting for thousands of years, so please tune in, when they"Iran" wants to use their "NUKES", now, without permission of the world. That's why we as Americans, who have some grip on what Peace is all about, have the right to go anywhere in the world to protect and or perserve stability between Nations. As, they say... untill they get more cops on the block, the US has to go in and get things done. Yeh! Like it's okay for them to lie to the world about how they were only going to use their Nuck. Power for peaceful purposes. Oh yeh! Sure, I believe them, uha...
Silly question. Can't believe I answered this one.
2007-01-11 09:44:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I agree, Iran and Syria is part of the problem and they've been part of the problem since the beginning of this debacle. Which is why Iraq's borders should have secured from day one. Tell me, why isn't Bush talking directly with Iran and Syria? Or do do think cowboy deplomacy is working, when its obvious its not.
2007-01-11 09:43:21 · answer #4 · answered by Third Uncle 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why anyone would look to negotiations with Syria/Iran to help quell the sectarian/insurgency problems in Iraq, as though they would do anything to help the US defend the nascent democracy there, is beyond me. Would anybody ask John Dillinger or Willie Sutton to provide ideas on improving banking security to cut down on all of those robberies???
Thank you, come again!
2007-01-11 09:30:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Of course Iran and Syria would denounce the speech. They want to take credit for "Driving" the US out of Iraq. These guys are extremists to the furthest degree, sending men and material into Iraq to fight us. Last I checked that would be an act of War. But it'd be politically incorrect for me to say so.
2007-01-11 09:25:21 · answer #6 · answered by Jon M 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
63% of the Americans denounce Bush's Iraq plan.
2007-01-11 09:40:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Guess Bush should have thought of that BEFORE he backed a Shiite govt......and please, don't say he didn't(it's a democracy...blah,blah,blah).....Bush backed the Shiite resistance starting with Chalabi then with Malaki...I mean heck...even HE refers to it as "malaki govt".
What the heck did he expect.....just another fine example of Bush's ill-thought out war in Iraq and even bigger....his piss-poor foreign policy!
That man no more considered the Sunni/Shiite split prior to the invasion than he "considered" outside sources regarding his "new plan"....both are a joke and consequently dangerous for the US.
2007-01-11 09:33:48 · answer #8 · answered by kissmybum 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
They want the plan to fail because as long as we are busy with Iraq then they feel safer. Despite the anti war crowds opinion or who is in the White house we will eventually have to take them out.
2007-01-11 09:24:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
so you really want to say that U.S. can occupy Iraq -probably most of you don't know where Iraq is- U.S. citizens and president can say their ideas and make plans about the future of Iraq but Iraq's neighbours, whatever their relations with U.S. are, shouldn't have anything to say about it.
well, that's the way to go. can you people be more arrogant?
2007-01-11 10:10:39 · answer #10 · answered by sedatp 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋