2007-02-02 16:31:43 · 26 answers · asked by Lakers 2010 Champs!!!! 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No.. We would all be suluting and Iran flag and talking in some wierd *** language... That moron Kerry called all the men and women that are in iraq putting there lifes on the line every hour of everyday for you me and the rest of the world stupid. if i were you i would delete this stupid question and throw my computer away and next time you see a vet. you should tell him thank you for protecting your right to be such a moron.
2007-02-02 16:41:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
ONLY KUCINOCH(spelling?) VOTED AGAINST INVADING IRAQ. I'm not voting for Hillary, but it's funny to see her getting a taste of her own hypocrisy on this issue. No, Kerry would run from any threat and throw money or maybe lob a few missiles or high altitude bombs at problems, and plead for protection from China or Russia to protect us, and support France's imperial claim on all Europe via the EU. I actually don't know what Kerry stands for, other than always being opposed to the fight against tyranny and violators of human rights and freedom in general. Afterall the only rights or freedoms you need, are the ones the liberals tell you to practice.
2007-02-03 00:39:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Bush is a dimwit and a tool, but Kerry is nothing different. Don't think so? Then answer me this - the Democratic Congress could end the Iraq War tomorrow by cutting off funding for it. Why don't they? Because they're triangulating, focus grouping, and finding the most saleable position for the next election cycle. The whole thing is rotten to the core.
2007-02-03 00:35:54 · answer #3 · answered by nergol 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think John Kerry would have stepped down, because he wouldn't be able to handle the pressure, between New Orleans, Iraq and Afganistan.
2007-02-03 00:37:58 · answer #4 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If John Kerry were elected president, I would go to Iraq today...Iraq would look good compared to here!
2007-02-03 00:35:35 · answer #5 · answered by bubba 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Are you sure such important decisions are taken by the individuals and not by institutions?
A country like America must be mature enough not to hand over its destiny in the hands of one person may it be Bush or Kerry.
Let the institutions take the strategical decisions so that complete nation is involved in taking such decisions having far reaching implications.
Please learn to learn from the past, it is never too late.
2007-02-03 01:03:58 · answer #6 · answered by Saadi 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Maybe, maybe not.
We'd either still be there, and it'd still be hell.
Or we'd be out, and it'd be part of Iran by now.
In my opinion, we'd still be there.
Going in was a mistake, going in unprepared was an even bigger mistake, but leaving before it's over would be the biggest mistake we could make.
Of course, this 20,000 soldier "surge" is a political joke.
2007-02-03 00:36:28 · answer #7 · answered by Richardson '08 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, I believe Al-Qaeda and maybe even Iraq would still be in America. John Kerry would be hiding in Canada.
GOD BLESS THE USA!
2007-02-03 00:35:22 · answer #8 · answered by Mr. US of A, Baby! 5 · 6⤊ 2⤋
Hey bubba,
you better get that ticket to Iraq cuz a Democrat is going to win in 2008, It might not be Kerry but it's defiantly not going to be a "SO CALL CONSERVATIVE"
Don't let the Democratic controlled American door hit you in the ...............A s s .
2007-02-03 00:42:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
yes...I think no matter who won the election in 04, we would still be there. We will be there for YEARS to come...well past 2010. The politico's just don't want the public to know.
2007-02-03 00:35:12 · answer #10 · answered by fade_this_rally 7 · 7⤊ 0⤋