Shouldn't we at least consider that the guy trying to get them all killed doesn't support them?
2007-01-23 06:48:18 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
For Bush and the GOP it is all about politics.
Politics first.
Corporate profits second. (e.g. Halliburton and big oil)
The lives of our troops a distant third.
2007-01-23 06:51:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Did you ever think that more troops would gain better control over there and then less troops would be killed? Do you prefer that our troops not have full control and therefore be in more danger? Think about it, if you are confonting ten criminals is it safer to confront them with 5 officers or 15 officers? As always, the Dems are playing politics with the lives of our brave troops and getting liberal media to brainwash our sheepish public into believing it's good idea. Or we could just do the big liberal run and hide plan and let Iran have Iraq and face a much larger war later that your kids will have to fight. The liberal plan? Stick our head in the sand and hope it all just goes away. Our troops over there need more help and deserve every bit of support we can offer them.
2007-01-23 06:52:02 · answer #2 · answered by mikearion 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, good point, although Bush's reasoning is that if there are more troops, then the ones there already are better protected. It's like sending reinforcements. Unfortunately, this is not the Wild West anymore and more troops are not the cavalry coming to the rescue in the nick of time. The enemy is smarter now. They know how to hide. That makes all the difference.
2007-01-23 06:53:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is a declared government opposed to the current government in Iraq??? When did that happen? I mean, that is what you need for a civil war. Even in Viet Nam, there was a declared counter-government. In all reality, folks, Mexico is closer to civil war than Iraq. A terrorist is not a revolutionary. A partisan may be both, but, there is no partisan movement, and still, then, there MUST be a declared governance.
2007-01-23 06:53:24 · answer #4 · answered by sjsosullivan 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
So I guess what you are saying is because the Democrats want to protest the war on terror, threaten to leave our soldiers without funds and support a troop with drawl , then Democrats Support the Ji Had agenda and are willing to help them by emplementing a withdraw or cap .... lets make that a queston...
2007-01-23 06:58:28 · answer #5 · answered by bereal1 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
ALmost everything this admistration has done has never made sense, they don't even have a domestic policy, except trying to keep the Mexicans out, which is idiotic because we need them. Sure Bush considered the temporary work permit idea but that's only a temporary solution.
2007-01-23 06:56:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I feel Bush is mostly doing this as revenge something he wanted to do all along and when he finally took power he got back at the people who tried to kill his father. It's gone too far this should end soon! America needs to go back to normal
2007-01-23 06:53:00 · answer #7 · answered by xprincezzSicax 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
he wants to send more troops because he knows there cannot be a civil end to this nightmare in Iraq, he has got to rely on sheer might and power in numbers..
2007-01-23 06:57:57 · answer #8 · answered by mack m 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ahh, another Liberal asking a pointless question that in no way is going to change the president's stance or mine on this war.
2007-01-23 06:59:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
He doesn't, he's sending them so we can win and end this war. You do want to win, right? Why do you hate America? Did you know Bush is Hitler? I mean, Bush is Hitler? Isn't that crazy?
2007-01-23 06:51:32 · answer #10 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋