The terrorists obviously haven't done enough killing of Americans to make it clear that they're the bad guys, so please let us know just how many they have to kill to get you pissedoff enough to fight back with everything we've got? 1 million? 10 million? 100 million? Give those of us who'd had enough waayyyy before 9/11 a number to work with so we can tell what it takes to make you take action against our attackers.
2007-03-19 01:56:39 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Answer the question people! The answer should be a number, not your anti-American, anti-Bush, touchy-feely liberal drivel. How many? If not a city, what will it take? How about a dirty bomb that renders the place uninhabitable for a few millinia?
2007-03-21 04:40:43 · update #1
And I agree with the reply "..living in fear is not the answer..." You're right! We should make THEM live in fear. We are the strongest nation on the planet, yet we act like total candyasses. If we're going to go to war, do it right! Only with a completely humiliating defeat can you ever hope to win. Ask the Japanese.
2007-03-21 04:43:56 · update #2
I would say at least 3.
The first one they will blame directly on Bush and try to have him impeached for it.
The second one they will blame on a republican congress before they took control.
The third they will be out of people to blame so they are going to have to start thinking that maybe terrorism is a threat of some sort.
2007-03-19 02:08:12 · answer #1 · answered by Snap 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Just because I (liberal) don't support the war in Iraq, doesn't mean that I don't support the war on terrorism. I think the money spent on the invasion would have been better spent securing our infrastructure - the borders, the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security. It's a bit ridiculous (and expensive) to send in an international force of hundreds of thousands to mount a war against cells or groups of people that are generally acting independent of each other. Most liberals think that an investment in the CIA would have yielded much better returns than a full scale military attack.
2007-03-19 10:25:15 · answer #2 · answered by CHARITY G 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can tell you haven't been to New York. Far from being "reduced to being a smoking hole in the ground," the city thrives today and will continue as such.
You don't give America enough credit for resiliency. And that is a shame, because that is one of the greatest things about this nation.
Living in fear is not the solution.
2007-03-19 09:07:39 · answer #3 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hey, guess what? It wasn't Iraqis that were on the planes that killed on 9/11, it was Saudis. It wasn't Saddam who ordered an attack on the US, it was Saddam. When will dumbasses like you stop using 9/11 as an excuse for Iraq?
2007-03-19 09:40:12 · answer #4 · answered by Huey Freeman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the USA was concerned about catching terrorists.....then we should be trying to catch Bin Laden.
2007-03-19 09:10:31 · answer #5 · answered by Villain 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
duh.............how many democrats does it take to figure that one out???? they would turn their backs and let us be attacked over and over until there would be nothing left of us or our earth as we know it.
2007-03-24 03:01:04 · answer #6 · answered by 44granny 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋