English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

IRAQ CIVIL WAR IS A FAILURE REPUBICANS
WAKE UP

2007-01-23 04:29:21 · 17 answers · asked by WMD LIE p 1 in Politics & Government Politics

17 answers

ummm becuase it's what fox news tells them. and to the moron above me. There were no terrorist in Iraq until we invaded.

2007-01-23 04:33:50 · answer #1 · answered by sydb1967 6 · 3 0

It doesn't matter if you or any other American thinks this war on terror is a failure. It is what the People of Iraq have to say about it. Have you seen a poll taken by the Iraqi people that say they disagree with this war. Think hard kOOk. Stop thinking of your neo-liberal self for one fraction of a tenth of a nano second and see what they have to say. I saw a poll. It was called election results. Do all you libs drink from the kool-aid pitcher. Do you think they are more worried about their oil, or that a terrorist, not a PC dumbed down insurgent, is going to kill them for wanting a free nation. So sleep well in your well protected home drinking your starbucks and wearing your Barney slippers and keep making stuff up.

2007-01-23 04:46:52 · answer #2 · answered by mbush40 6 · 0 1

Most of us have a hard time admitting that we were duped. We don't like to admit failure, or making a mistake. Pride is the issue. We tend to hold out far too long, hoping that we will eventually be proved right.

Sometimes we simply blind ourselves to any thinking other than our own. Even after we get shot down and history has ruled against us, we have some kind of rationalization that justifies our actions.

Human nature is reliable that way.

2007-01-23 04:41:55 · answer #3 · answered by Tim 2 · 1 0

Abe Lincoln led an unpopular conflict (there have been even riots in ny), stored changing his motives for combating, killed over 500,000 American squaddies on my own (making it the worst conflict ever for the U.S.), destroyed a number of U.S. cities (destroying the city to save it) did no longer truly end whilst the conflict grow to be over (there have been bombings interior the Sixties from those unwilling to offer up). He additionally did actually no longer something as U.S. president and yet is seen by skill of many to have been an somewhat sturdy president (the explanation he's on all that money and his birthday is widely known). that's no longer even an high priced conflict as some distance because of the fact the GNP is going. It additionally hasn't failed. The Iraqi police and defense force stress is turning out to be. A dropping defense force consistently shrinks.

2016-11-26 21:13:44 · answer #4 · answered by meeks 4 · 0 0

before bush invaded i would have rather lived in iraq. today citizens have more to fear under a democracy than they ever did under a dictatorship. right on! and to the person that says that iran needs to be dealt with next... if you get out of iraq... and btw this is looking like a WW3

2007-01-23 04:40:26 · answer #5 · answered by i see you all 3 · 0 0

Ok to that liberal before who said that there were no terroists in Iraq before the U.S invastion. Do a search on any search engine on the internet for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and it will confirm that he was in Iraq in 2002 a year before us. And if you don't think that he was planning an attack on the U.S? well

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2813235&page=1

2007-01-23 04:41:56 · answer #6 · answered by Relax Guy 5 · 0 1

How can you call the War against Iraq a failure when more people have power and water in their homes than ever did under Sadaam. The news here only tells one side - and they don't tell any good news.

2007-01-23 04:32:00 · answer #7 · answered by lifesajoy 5 · 0 4

Bush has succeeded in the goals of the Iraq War.

When Clinton called off the cease-fire with the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, he made it official US policy to remove Saddam's regime from power and install a democratic form of government in Iraq. Clinton bombed Iraq for days but failed miserably.

Bush has achieved those goals.

Now, we are maintaining a security force, aiding Iraq's legitimate government and its people by defending them from Islamists who have been trying to take over that country for many decades. Saddam also fought against those sorts. We are obligated to do this by Geneva Conventions, which allow us to withdraw only when Iraq's military and police are ready to handle security matters.

2007-01-23 04:31:37 · answer #8 · answered by speakeasy 6 · 1 5

Because if the US "cuts and runs" like so many Lib-Tards want to do, the whole region will be sucked into one big blood bath. It will eventually involve some powerful players due to the fact that so much of the world's oil is located in that region.

Anyone who doesn't want to see this thing through is either brainwashed, ignorant of the facts, or just plain stupid.

2007-01-23 04:36:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 4

Typical liberal. Keep saying something over and over again until enough idiots think its the truth. Why don't you do this, drive around in your prius, keep going to starbucks and let the adult's do all the thinking! Oh, and stop voting!

Your anti-American, anti-capitalist, and a douche!

2007-01-23 04:34:16 · answer #10 · answered by Chester's Liver 2 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers