You’re not supporting the soldiers by that you are supporting the creation of an empire. If you oppose to the creation of an empire is not cutting your support for the soldiers is just the opposite. The Republicans may want to make you think that way because they are pro empire but a pre emptive attack base on fabricated information is historically an expansion of an empire.
2007-02-11 07:14:06 · 6 answers · asked by Jose R 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I agree, that was confusing.:)) Ok I'm talking about the augmentation in Iraq. The Republicans say that is necessary to support the soldiers. Obviously the are asking for more money that the Democrats don't want to allocate for that purpose. By the democrats refusing to give that money to Halliburton, the Rep say that the Dems don't want to support the soldiers. When what they are doing is not supporting the expansion of an empire. The imperialist Rep. use the expansion of the empire as a patriotic thing to do when most Americans don't want to expand as an empire.
2007-02-11 07:40:28 · update #1
" When did the United States move from a force of good to a force of imperialism".
John McCain
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/
2007-02-11 08:07:15 · update #2
Wish I understood the question.
2007-02-11 07:18:59 · answer #1 · answered by kathy059 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why don't you listen? A democracy is being formed. The US soldiers need that money to keep going. Even the congress understands that. We have over 12,000 military vehicles that are sitting there waiting for repair which is costing into the billions...or do you suggest we throw them away and start from scratch. Iraq is a country...not an empire. That word has not been used in I don't know how long...since the time of the Romans I think.
You have no clue as to what they are trying to do there, mainly because you are not there. My family is and the soldiers know, and the armchair warriors do NOT. Things are not being fabricated and the information that lead to Iraq has been coming in since before 1998. So unless you've done your homework, please keep these types of comments to your own self.
2007-02-11 15:50:04 · answer #2 · answered by chole_24 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
THat was just like one long question with a bunch of words repeated in different ways. Why don't u be more specific or clear? If a soldier is risking his life everyday to create an empire it would make it easier if you funded him. If u didn't fund him, he would have to find alternative ways to do it, and it would take a lot longer. If he duty is to create an empire then just b/c u dont agree with it doesn't mean he doesn't, and needs the money. But I dont even know if this is what ur asking b/c ur way to confussing so re-write the question.
2007-02-11 15:31:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
...okay...if u r infering that somehow we (america) is turining into an empire by supporting the troops, by supporting the war in iraq, due to supposed fabricated information we ourselves are becoming an empire. I would have to say no, history can not relate to new conflicts if that was the case and we could use historic evidence of saddams torture and inhuman attacks against the kurds as an excuse for the war from the begging.
I hope thats what u meant...
2007-02-11 15:35:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
OK so quote your investigative source for the fabricated information? - You must be some high official in the Government to know the information on Iran is fraudulent
Oh I am sorry did I ruin your pipe smoking high
2007-02-11 15:31:29 · answer #5 · answered by Samuel L 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That was confusing.
http://www.conservativeworld.us/
2007-02-11 15:27:05 · answer #6 · answered by JASON A 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋