2007-02-25 14:43:02 · 9 answers · asked by R C 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Your question supposes that they would be able to amass enough troops to fight here which is just flat out STUPID so your question id really merit less
2007-02-25 14:53:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I find it strange that anyone would prefer to have a ground war in their own country. Who would want to live in a war zone? Not I.
We'd win a lot easier at home as you'd be hard pressed to find an anti-war rally. They'd all be fighting for their lives. No, that's still not a plus.
2007-02-25 14:48:41 · answer #2 · answered by Nationalist 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Theirs. Imagine how many rights we all would lose in the REAL crackdown to stop them here! It'd be hard to tell the terrorists from the native rebels.
2007-02-25 14:49:03 · answer #3 · answered by Michael E 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Excellent question.
Obviously, the answer is on their turf - unless you lean too far to the left, in which case, the answer is neither place - they should obviously be allowed to slaughter thousands of innocent men, women and children with impunity.
2007-02-25 14:50:22 · answer #4 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Most definitely on THEIRS...you wouldn't want that war here. NO ONE in their right mind would want it here. Our lives, as we know them would turn to SH and that's the truth.
2007-02-25 14:46:44 · answer #5 · answered by chole_24 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Neither, but is is easier and less costly to defend at home.
2007-02-25 14:47:06 · answer #6 · answered by Timothy M 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
most definitely theirs
2007-02-25 14:51:11 · answer #7 · answered by TJ815 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
their turf.
2007-02-25 14:48:45 · answer #8 · answered by patriot07 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
how about where they (and we)were until they followed us to iraq. so not in the US,but afghanistan.
2007-02-25 14:52:25 · answer #9 · answered by J Q Public 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋