2007-02-02 23:22:19 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
America (sigh)
2007-02-02 23:26:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 6⤋
No one will be next, although we never paid attention to the starving people of Africa who could have used some of the Halliburten cash for frivolities such as food. We deposed their dictator, destroyed the chemical weapons he used against his own people--what more do you want? Are we supposed to solve a religious conflict over the heir to Mohamed after 800 years of dispute. The President's own generals do not think the Iraqi army can be ready in 18 months. The Sunni cannot fight the Shiite militia. The Iraqi police are thugs. The President admits the war is "going badly." His new reason for not leaving is that would be a defeat. Wake up--we already won, so get us out! We are not turning out back on the Iraqi people. We're giving them back their own destiny, violent as that may be. If they can't stop fighting each other, why should our young men and women die for a religion we don't even believe?
2007-02-02 23:38:22 · answer #2 · answered by David M 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Who will be next to turn their back on the Iraqi people?
The president, of course!
Wait, watch and listen.
.
2007-02-03 02:42:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
We could turn our backs on the people of the Darfur and the Sudan. No, wait, Bush already did that.
We could turn our backs on the American troops already in Iraq by not providing them with the protective equipment that they need. Nevermind, Bush has done that.
We could turn our backs on the people of New Orleans. Oh no, Bush handled that for us too.
We could turn our backs on women and the poor. Oops, he's already got that covered.
We could turn our backs on future generations by completely destroying the budget of the federal government. Nope, Bush has taken care of that, too.
We could turn our backs on the planet, by ignoring the realities of global warming. Hmmm, done already by Bush and the Republicans.
Doesn't leave much work for us at all, really...
I think I'll go plant a tree.
2007-02-04 02:54:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Like the Republicans give a rat's behind. Can we please stop pretending any of this had anything to do with the poor opressed people of Iraq.
If opresssion was really a concern we would start in China and work our way west. We would cut the Saudi's off, we would have no bases in places like Uzbekistan, we would cut off Israel, and England (Northern Irleand anyone).
Saying this is about creating liberty is like SUV's actually conserve feul because they carry more people.
2007-02-02 23:50:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Liberals are self loathing creatures.
That explains a lot of what they do that makes no sense.
Liberals are the new fascist Nazi's.
They can't tolerate any opinion different than their's.
Look what they do to college speakers. They throw urine, pies, pull fire alarms, start fights, etc etc, to keep conservative's from speaking.
They want to pass laws to eliminate talk radio.
Liberals are intolerant, bigoted fascists, incapable of allowing free speech.
Islamicfascists have pledged to murder you and me.
Liberals want to help them.
Conservatives want to fight them.
Liberalism is ok when it is practiced.
But todays America's liberals, are not real liberals.
They are against change of all types and devoid of new idea's or solutions to problems.
Conservatives offered many new programs and initiatives the last 6 years, and liberals always fought against them, with never an original idea or solution to offer in return.
Liberals love it whan a woman murders a child that is unborn but hate it when criminals who rape, murder and commit attrocities get the death penality.
In reality the liberals of today are Stalinists and Marxists. Their belief that government is the solution to all problems and no wealth should be privately owned is what drives todays liberals.
They are also anti-American. They believe America is the worlds problem and the world would be better off without America in it.
Liberals are all for forsaking the poor weak and downtrodden if America's military is involved in keeping them alive, but insist on keeping America's poor weak and downtrodden in their miserable existance because of 'political correctness', (New Orleans and any urban city).
2007-02-02 23:41:59 · answer #6 · answered by Feelsgood 2 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Repubs didn't send troops to Iraq to save the Iraqis, they sent them to find "WMD's" so no one has really had the Iraqi peoples interests in mind (until they needed a reason for being in Iraq.) lol
Neocons:
"Saving" people for self-serving interests since 2001.
2007-02-02 23:32:36 · answer #7 · answered by Omniscience 2 · 6⤊ 3⤋
Don't look at it as turning their backs on the Iraqi people but look at it as saving the lives or our troops and reducing the debt on our children.
2007-02-02 23:27:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 2⤋
Yet I still see no facts supporting a Conservative's theory, Pathetic
2007-02-03 04:13:59 · answer #9 · answered by A nobody 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Puppies, kittens and unicorns? Worst question ever.
2007-02-02 23:26:56 · answer #10 · answered by I'll Take That One! 4 · 7⤊ 3⤋