Isn't it interesting that Bin Laden issued a video warning to the U.S. right before the last Presidential elections. He threatened us if we re-elected Bush. (Of course this backfired on the bearded idiot; Bush gained popularity)
Liberals don't want us to win in Iraq because it will prove they are always on the wrong side of history. First in the Cold War, and now the War on Terror.
Liberals also think America is not the cure for the world's problems, but rather the cause.
Al-Zarkawi implored his followers to commit as much mayhem as possible because eventually, he reasoned, stupid, naive American "anti-war" demonstrators would derail support for the war, and his side would win. Guess who is playing right into his hands?
Liberals, will they ever learn?
2007-03-01 12:13:40
·
answer #1
·
answered by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7
·
6⤊
6⤋
ok, i'm not sure what this question is alluding to, but I will do my best to answer. Skip tho the end for the good stuff.
To fully answer this question, we must look back to when Bush senior was president. This was the time when Somalia was being taken over by warlords, creating a corrupt feudalistic government. The suppressed peoples were starving, Bush decided to provide food for the people of Somalia, this was somewhat successful and we (Americans) were seen as a somewhat benevolent world super power. Conservatives of the time generally believed in this passive aid to other countries and had most of their focus on economy. However when Clinton took power he decided that change was needed - he decided that the oppression of the Somalian people would not go unnoticed this led to Black Hawk Down. Some one gets shot - we pull out. At this time America was now viewed in the world light as an over prosperous empire that refused to help the less fortuante. 9/11 changed everything. GW Bush and the American people agreed that fundamentalist/ radical islaam was an evil force and it is required that we put it down. Several years later we find ourselves in Iraq, why did the democrats shift radically from the position of helping the Somalian people to cutting and running in Iraq? The dialectic - they saw that this war on terror could destroy organized crime and they knew that Republicans would get credit. It is this dialectic - that when one party does something positive and begins to gain power the other undermines it - that is destroying our country. Quite simply the democrats want us out of Iraq so they look "right" while the terrorists want us out so they may reestablish a safe haven.
I hoped this helped, i tried to limit bashing as much as possible, holla back for more.
2007-03-01 12:43:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by thereytrain 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
They don't agree. Terrorists want a safe haven from which to launch attacks upon whomever. They are threatened by the thought of a free democratically voting Iraq. They fear a U.S. presence in Iraq. Democrats are driven by Bush Hatred Syndrome, as well as an all consuming lust for regaining the White House and will do anything to attain it. By the way to the guy who said that Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense during Vietnam, you are wrong. Rummie took that office 8 months after the fall of Saigon.
2007-03-01 12:42:28
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm not so sure they do... maybe in the most elementary way you could possibly look at it... you could say that...
but, it's a very complex issue... and frankly I really don't trust anything the terrorists say... and I think they have many hidden motives...
personally, I think terrorist leadership wants us to stay in Iraq... if we're in Iraq, we're not going after the leadership, they know where we are... and they know how to fight this kind of war... they did for years in Afghanistan and made Russia spend millions (that they didn't have) doing it...
of course they say they want us to leave and we're the oppressors and blah, blah, blah... but how would it benefit the terrorists if we left? they have plenty of nations, room for camps, and those nations give them money already, and the Iraqi current army is quite large...
and if we left, we might actually go after their leadership...
2007-03-01 12:15:58
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Terrorists want to keep us in Iraq until we go bankrupt just like they kept Russia in Afghanistan for 14 years until the Soviet Union fell apart. That's our future if we stay there much longer. Communist China is financing this war. When do you think they'll want their money back? Trillions of $. How can you win a war when you can't tell friend from foe? Better get a reality check.
2007-03-01 12:17:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
I am Republican, but a lot of democrats voted for this war, and are backing down because of so called 'public opinion'
Also some Republican's are backing down....
This is all because of so called 'public opinion'
Well polls are not always right....
Just because the Democrats were voted in this time don't mean every one agrees with what they stand for people are just running scared because our government is so divided!!!
And nothing is getting done! With the governemnt all divided up even worse now even less will get done!
2007-03-01 12:14:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by TRUE GRIT 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
Are you saying that terrorists and republicans do not agree with each other on Iraq?
2007-03-01 12:09:29
·
answer #7
·
answered by ha_mer 4
·
4⤊
1⤋
Republicans and democrats totally disagree on Iraq.
2007-03-01 12:07:39
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
No matter how you slice it, debate it, or spin it in a ironic way both depend on a defeat of the US in Iraq to regain power....scary
2007-03-01 12:34:15
·
answer #9
·
answered by garyb1616 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The "terrorists" do not consider themselves to be "terrorists." They consider themselves to be patriots whose country has been invaded by the imperial country of the USA. They are willing to die to save their country, Iraq.
Democrats realize that invading Iraq for no good reason was a mistake, and did nothing except perpetuate this notion of theirs. It made the problem worse, not better.
2007-03-01 12:10:29
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
4⤋
Care to provide some sort of proof that's not from any of the following sources:
Fox noise
Limbaugh
Hannity
O'Liely
Weiner Savage
I seriously doubt you can, or have the guts to. But I'll check back later.
2007-03-01 12:24:59
·
answer #11
·
answered by Third Uncle 5
·
1⤊
1⤋