The bugs the sand.
It has every appearence that all military action is directed at people.
We as in the loyal subjects of Bush, are rebuilding the infrestructure. So what are we attacking if not the people???
2007-04-02 13:09:59 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
USMC VietNam 1967-1969
Yeah Sure
Another imaginary Grunt like Andy G
2007-04-02 13:22:16 · update #1
LOL calling me out and any REAL VET knows that our military fights not the president but only REAL vets know that and call out others because of their lack of a spine
Level One LMAO!!!!!!!!
2007-04-02 15:29:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The ideal of war is never the one we wind up seeing.
I tend to believe the better guesses that the civilian collateral deaths are somewhere between 400,000 and 750,000. The wounded count would rival that.
How many of those deaths are insurgent/civil war related and how many are a direct result of US/British actions is debatable.
People die. They will continue to die if we leave today or 10 years from today.
2007-04-02 20:20:30 · answer #2 · answered by Floyd G 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think he was really just trying to distract everyone from the fact that he was doing a terrible job. That and finding a passage to the East Indies and a spot to attack Iran and North Korea from.
2007-04-02 20:16:44 · answer #3 · answered by stezus 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There you go again, confusing them with the facts! We attacked the leader of Iraq, Saddam and his army, always with the oil fields in sight. That we are killing Iraqis by the tens of thousands, maybe way more than that, is just "collateral damage" in the Master Plan. BushOilCo will of course say that we attacked the terrorists, but they weren't there when we went in . The people it is, but if we abstract them they don't count, so abstract them Bush does. "Insurgents" was a clever word used to do that don't you think?
2007-04-02 20:15:00 · answer #4 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
It has no appearance of attacking the people! Show a link---oh, you haven't got one. Instead you think it is OK just to spout off any old thing you want!! You are a disappointment to mankind.
2007-04-02 20:26:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
We are attacking the people of Iraq. Attacking them, killing them, torturing them, raping them and tearing down their homes not to mention ancient sites and burning down museums filled with irreplaceable artifacts as well as hospitals, schools and all other structures. It is an all out massacre.
2007-04-02 20:17:20 · answer #6 · answered by one voice 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
we attacked the people ina way, the Saddam Hussein followers. we wanted no harm to come overe the citizens of Iraq. We were attacking the Iraqi dictatorship
2007-04-02 20:15:07 · answer #7 · answered by blah blah 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Put your helmet back on, and stay on the short bus!!!! Bush attacked NO people... He ordered our Military to remove an evil dictator and they did so!!
Do you know that Clinton had more of our Military killed in duty than Bush has in 8 years? This is a fact!!!!
2007-04-02 20:14:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
He didn't attack - he liberated the Iraqis and gifted untold thousands with death and destruction under the umbrella of democracy. 2 millon more fled the country to escape the liberation.
2007-04-02 20:19:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
He attacked the fanatical Islamic sects. He just did it in a very ignorant way. The Shites and Sunni's have been fighting for centuries. We can't fix that for them, and we certainly can't help them organize a new democracy while the insanity continues. Bush can't do it and I don't care how many of our men and women he throws at them, not to mention...why in the HELL would you take a military action against Iraq...and promptly get rid of all administration members with military experience?
2007-04-02 20:14:04 · answer #10 · answered by Lisa E 6 · 0⤊ 6⤋