I live in a tiny College town with a 100% liberal population. When Liberals are talking about attacking. Is that a sign that Bush has conquered the hearts and soul of freedom???
2007-03-29 07:01:43 · 18 answers · asked by ? 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
People are jumping for joy with the possiability of attacking Iran over this Britishs Sailor event. Yet still protect Arabia years after they attacked the WTC
Something is out of balance
2007-03-29 07:13:08 · update #1
Pul-lease. It simply means that Saudi Arabia is actively financing terrorism around the globe and giving monetary aid to hate schools that teach the youth of the middle east to grow up hating Americans.
Yet, the Bushies remain good friends with the Saudi royal family. And as I'm sure you know, most of the 9/11 hi-jackers came from Saudi Arabia, so many thinking people believe we should be "putting the screws" to Saudi Arabia, and not wasting time and money and blood on nations that never attacked us.
There is no winning this war in Iraq. Only further shame and humiliation for the U.S.
2007-03-29 07:08:05 · answer #1 · answered by Stan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They might have been pointing out the fact that 15 of the 19 Sept. 11th terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and questioning why Bush attacked Iraq INSTEAD of Saudi Arabia.
(Further note: I have also never heard a liberal suggest an attack on Saudi Arabia)
2007-03-29 14:16:20 · answer #2 · answered by supertamsf 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What it means is they have started passing out their kickbacks and war profits from the Iraq War Bill. That bill had $20 billion in wasteful spending. With an Iraq War Bill to fund things like $74 million for peanut storage, $124 million for the shrimp industry and $25 million for spinach producers you know the liberals could not wait to get more war profits from another conflict.
2007-03-29 14:26:50 · answer #3 · answered by George G 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. It means they are pointing out that if we attacked anyone as a result of 9/11, it should have been the country where the majority of the hijackers were from.
Bush attacked Iraq because he personally didn't like Saddam.
And didn't attack Saudi Arabia because they are friends of the family. Military threat assessment had nothing to do with it.
2007-03-29 14:05:50 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Ummm... I haven't heard any Liberals or Conservatives at all talking about attacking Saudi Arabia other than you...
2007-03-29 14:04:46 · answer #5 · answered by Blackacre 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm not really sure why anyone would say that.
Yes it was primarily Saudi's that were behind 9/11, but it's not like the Saudi government sponsored the attack.
That's liberalism run amuck.
2007-03-29 14:04:59 · answer #6 · answered by Josh 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We can't afford to attack anyone at the present with precision and Bush is losing the damn war! if i were he he should focus on
one war at a time because he shows us he can't multitasking
two war let alone another one!
2007-03-29 14:07:41 · answer #7 · answered by Kevi 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes! Let's attack the CRADLE OF ISLAM! Nothing says WW3 like bombing the Kabba!
Come on, reality check!
EDIT: Liberal Lawyer Alert above me. His creed? "Imprison the Innocent and let the Guilty go free!"
2007-03-29 14:06:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Sounds like you're talking to the wrong 'liberals'. Not a 'top tier' college I'm guessing.
2007-03-29 14:06:34 · answer #9 · answered by Morey000 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I really feel sorry for you living in a town like that...You will never learn to think for yourself when you have far left professors pounding you daily with their hate America propaganda .. you might as well live in Putin ville
2007-03-29 14:06:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋