I propose that any politician who want to pull out of Iraq without a clear victory there should have to sign a document that states "I surrender to terrorism and and radical Islam." That way when the next 9-11 comes, we will clearly know who was at fault.
2007-01-19 09:50:45 · 18 answers · asked by dougdell 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I'm enjoying the responses from all the very misinformed folks who support surrender...! And thanks to all the level-headed folks out there who are not interested in caving in to terrorism.
2007-01-19 10:48:24 · update #1
As long as there is some meat in it....like they can be charged with Treason
2007-01-19 09:55:26 · answer #1 · answered by PoliticallyIncorrect 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋
this is preposterous. there is not any valid evidence that their evaluations will convey approximately the point of disaster which you propose. you're presenting that politicians opposing the conflict in Iraq help terror; that's absurd. they are intitled to their evaluations as afforded to them in the process the form of the rustic, in simple terms as you're. An occasion of the opposite on your rhetoric could be a suggestion that each flesh presser that helps the conflict in Iraq helps terror, becuase the reasons that we've troops in Iraq have been particularly a lie. And those politicians must be forced to sign a resign that states, "I resign to terrorism and radical politicians."
2016-12-12 15:33:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We have already won that war. America has accomplised what it went there to do, now were there for someother reason and I still don't know for what. No wmd, no saddam, an democratic government, what's left besides b.s. ego trips? Those people has had thousands of year practice doing what they are doing right now and george and his supporters are stupid as hell to think it's going to end without killing every single thing that lives there. It's political B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T!
2007-01-19 10:01:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Get your facts right. Iraq had nothing to do with either 9-11 or terrorism or radical islam. It was American invasion that spawned terrorism there.
2007-01-19 09:54:55 · answer #4 · answered by ramshi 4 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Get your facts straight Dougie. George W. is at fault for leading us into that quagmire in the first place. Remember the WMD's and then it was to "free the Iraqi people from Sadam".
Well, we've won on both accounts....I guess. Sadam's dead and there are no WMD's. So what are we still doing there??
It's George W's war, just like Vietnam was Lyndon Johnson's war. NO ONE ELSE BUT HIS.
2007-01-19 10:05:54 · answer #5 · answered by Ed A 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Oh, oh, so we should stay in Iraq and make all the Iraqis hate us. Even the prime minister wants us out! By pulling out of Iraq, we would be giving the Iraqis the independence we claim we care so much about. Most terrorist attacks are only because they want us out.
2007-01-19 09:57:57 · answer #6 · answered by justagirl 3 · 4⤊ 4⤋
OR!
How about all the politicians who are for the war send all their family to fight along with the additional troops that are being sent there? And all the people who are for this war go there as well to help get the victory?
2007-01-19 09:54:27 · answer #7 · answered by FaerieWhings 7 · 6⤊ 4⤋
There is no defined objective there and only the hearts and minds of Iraqis are at stake.
2007-01-19 09:56:27 · answer #8 · answered by N H 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Good question but you seemm to hit all the bleeding heart Liberals at one time. Yes for history it would be good to see the flip flops as stated. I'd call them Turncoats.
2007-01-19 10:02:31 · answer #9 · answered by rdyjoe 4 · 1⤊ 5⤋
No. Those who want the fight to continue must be sent first. That is only absolutely fair.
2007-01-19 09:54:43 · answer #10 · answered by Ottawan-Canada 3 · 5⤊ 4⤋