"Cut and Run" (a favorite Conservative term) in Afghanistan, on Al Qaeda, and on Osama Bin Laden? What was so important in Iraq that we could quit fighting the War on terror (you know the guys that attacked us on 9-11) and start a new War in Iraq (you know the guys that did NOT attack us on 9-11)? What gives Con's? Why don't we start fighting the war on terror again to protect us Americans??
Is there anything more important than finding capturing or killing O.B.L.???
I think NOT
2007-04-02 03:54:30 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Ah.....YA......
"Bring all the military home!!! We need that money for other programs that we aren't sure will work or not!!!!! "
400 + billion and or 3 billion a week would buy allot of.....
Cancer, Aids, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Diabetes, Stem Cell research .....not to mention re-newable energy, boarder security, or education
2007-04-02 04:10:19 · update #1
Brad,
We are half heartedly in Afinganistan and you know it, so don't give me that clueless crap........
2007-04-02 04:13:13 · update #2
Kevin,
We are half heartedly in Afinganistan and you know it, so don't give me that "troll" crap........
2007-04-02 04:15:12 · update #3
are you kidding? osama's continued existence helped cement the deal (along with the phony baloney iraq-911 connections and the mythical WMD's that got us into war) to get bush re-elected in '04...as long as they could keep the 'goebbels plan' (stoke up fear in the population, trash the reputations of anyone who doesn't goose-step along with the brownshirts in power) rolling, his re-election was in the bag!
2007-04-02 04:01:02 · answer #1 · answered by spike missing debra m 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We have been at war with radical Islam since Iran took our embassy people hostage during the Carter administration. We chose to ignore this disease known as international terrorism for decades. We finally realized that we are at war after the attack on 9/11. The only reason it ended up in Iraq right now is Saddam overplayed his hand. He would still be in power if he had cooperated with the UN inspectors. He liked making everyone believe he had horrible weapons. After 9/11 we could not take the chance that he did and might provide the technology to terrorists. Since we were still at war with Iraq since Dessert Storm, we took the opportunity to take out his perceived threat.
The terror supporting countries in the region realize the threat to them that a Free Iraq would pose, have been supporting the insurgency with money and sophisticated weapons. The disease of fundamentalist Islam tyranny cannot abide the cure that liberty brings to the long suffering people of the Middle East.
2007-04-02 10:58:43 · answer #2 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
there was nothing more important in Iraq.
They had nothing to do with 9-11.
There were no WMD's.
Iraq was NOT a threat to the U.S.
We were lied to and the result is, the real Global War on Terror has been weakened.
There were more terrorist attacks around the world in the first two years of 2007 than there were in 2003 and 2004.
2007-04-02 11:01:37 · answer #3 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Cons constantly harp that Clinton failed to get Osama (with missiles from hundreds of miles away), though we had him cornered in Tora Bora (I realize that Bush wasn't on the ground personally but that wouldn't stop the cons from blaming Clinton if this had happened under his watch) yet delegated the pursuit to Afghan warlords instead of sending in our own elite troops. Talk about a failure in leadership .
2007-04-02 11:13:44 · answer #4 · answered by celticexpress 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Even Osama Bin Laden has been quoted as saying the war in Iraq "...is the most important war for our brothers to win". Who do you think is funding the insurgents? Al Quiada. To suggest that it's not a battle against terrorists now is just ignorant.
2007-04-02 10:59:18 · answer #5 · answered by Scott B 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Sorry but Bin Laden is dead. Nothing new has been seen of him sense Tora Bora, NOTHING. I've seen the so called new videos but they all showed a younger OBL. I work with pictures and I know new vs old.
Unless you can prove he's alive, he's going to stay dead.
Oh and our troops are still there. You must be one out of date troll.
2007-04-02 11:12:36 · answer #6 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Clueless: We are still in Afghanistan. Have been since 2001. We have not cut and have not run. The media chooses not to show Afghanistan much becasue it is a military success and that would undermind the liberal movement to bring defeat to America.
2007-04-02 11:02:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
No, there is nothing more important than that.
Except Baby Bush and his own wittle personal agenda.
Thank God he accomplished what was best for the BUSH FAMILY. Because he has NOT accomplished what's best for AMERICA.
2007-04-02 10:58:01 · answer #8 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
yes, holding accountable governements that would aid and harbor those that want to attack us. Stop drinking the liberal kool-aid, just because Saddam wasn't responsible for 9/11 doesn't mean he wasn't a threat.
2007-04-02 10:58:53 · answer #9 · answered by monet 2 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Didn't you hear? Because WE WON! "Mission Accomplished"! I saw it on the news a few years back.
2007-04-02 10:58:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋