or, list your candidates here.
2007-02-25 11:33:53 · 15 answers · asked by tangodancer 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Notice how many of the right wingers choose to use personal attack instead of persuasion. Usually the sign that they have no valid reasons to support their position.
2007-02-25 11:42:29 · update #1
Hello! Innocent people always, unfortunately, get killed in ANY war. Why is this so hard for libs to wrap their minds around? SHEESH....
2007-02-25 11:37:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Seeing as Bush is not arming U.S. children under the age of 18 with car bombs to take their own life and inflict murder inside the U.S. border and to blow up other U.S. citizens, I would have to say Bush is not even in the running.
Little "baby" must be a terrorist sympahthiser since she thinks a terrorist sort of human disorder is okay compared to a hired U.S. soldier whose duty is to save lives in a combat zone. In fact, it is not even a fit comparison to the question posed.
When there is another attack on U.S. soil, and U.S. soldiers have been withdrwn from Iraq, I hope there is a democrat standing in front of me so that I might thank him/her personally for such great strides in knowledge, leadership, courage, honor, and the dedication of protecting the homeland (killing of innocent women, children and other unarmed civilans by terrorists) that are shown in times that we are in now. Thank God we have Bush for now, but soon that time will be over.
REMEMBER THE ALAMO.
2007-02-25 15:51:07 · answer #2 · answered by ringolarry 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is left wing morons like you who are helping terror spread around the world. War is war. People die. Attacking the President does nothing to help the country or the soldiers in Iraq.
War is a part of life. Smoking pot and holding up signs will never end war. War is as old as mankind. We have had them in our history and we will have them in the future. If you do not have a better solution keep your mouth shut.
If you do have a better solution to stop terror I would love to hear it. As far as I can tell we have not had a terror attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. I guess the terrorists are busy fighting in Iraq.
2007-02-25 11:39:44 · answer #3 · answered by Illinois-Lawyer 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
If the person killing the innocent civilians is purposely targeting these civilians - Bush isn't even in the running.
2007-02-25 11:41:13 · answer #4 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Letting them come to the United States and killing women and children here in the states.
2007-02-25 11:42:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've noticed that. Perhaps they don't know any better. After all, look who they support.
Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Propaganda Minister said; “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger”.
2007-02-25 12:03:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
During the Saddam era, millions of people were killed in northern Iraq. Right now, civilians are dying in Iraq, but very few, if any, are because of the US military. Most civilian deaths are from the insurgents blowing each other up.
2007-02-25 11:37:47 · answer #7 · answered by Chopper 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
All you people are insane. Bush a terrorist....!!!!??? However, you libs continue with this insane talk that the average American does not relate too. Its how I know we will see another Republican voted into office in 2008.
2007-02-25 15:10:22 · answer #8 · answered by Shawn P 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush is up there. I think he is responsible for about as many Iraqi civilians as Saddam at this point isn't he?
2007-02-25 12:02:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Al Qaeda
Iran
Syria
2007-02-25 11:37:29 · answer #10 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I say Bush because at least terrorist are very clear in their intentions.
2007-02-25 14:25:49 · answer #11 · answered by Baby 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋