Pres. Bush owes it to our military and the American people to try every available possibility to come to a quick and satisfactory end to the conflict in Iraq. Why doesn't he see that even if there is the slightest hope, he should be giving it his best shot?
2007-04-15 11:39:25 · 14 answers · asked by BekindtoAnimals22 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
SgtG: The leaders of Syria and Iran are not terrorists as such even though they harbor them. Syria did pull out of Lebanon. I think it is worth talking to them. Yes, it may mean addressing other issues as well. That is long overdue.
2007-04-15 11:58:57 · update #1
And, Poland, Britain, and France didn't have much of a military as an alternative like we do. Iran and Syria know we don't have to talk to them. So you are aware that by not talking to them, they are next? That is as plain as the nose on anybody's face. They know that as well. Get ready for WWIII boys and girls.
2007-04-15 12:04:52 · update #2
I think the Bush administration owes us much more than that
2007-04-15 18:51:36 · answer #1 · answered by Blue 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
We ALL owe much to our troops. The democommies owe a bill that the president can sign that provides funds to continue the effort in Iraq and Afghanistan MUCH MORE than the president owes some fruitless talks with these lice. The mighty UN, one of the spineless democommie tools, has not been able to talk Iran out of their nuclear weapons development. The gallivanting speaker of the house went to talk to that louse in Syria, and we all know old Nancy can lie with the best of them. Did she bring any good news back with her? Yes, I would like to see this quick and SATISFACTORY conclusion to the war in Iraq but I do not want the satisfaction to be with the Iranians and other terrorists of the area. That's why I'm against the Democommie's plan of cutting and running. Old GW is giving it his best shot. I think that his distractors should be in the boat with him and allow the "surge" to play out. As of now, that IS his best shot.
2007-04-15 11:52:19 · answer #2 · answered by just the facts 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It's called conviction of what's right vs. what's easy. Example?
Maybe if Abe Lincoln would have just let the South secede from the union, or if he just would have upheld slavery, he could have "given it his best shot" and we wouldn't have had all those needless deaths in the civil war. What WAS he thinking? (slightest hope for a quick end #1)
Perhaps if Kennedy would have dismantled all of our nuclear weapons, it would have assuaged Castro's fears enough that the Cuban missile crisis would have been averted a bit earlier... should we have tried that? (slightest hope #2)
Perhaps if Reagan would have surrendered our naval forces to Russia in the 80's, we would have just lost that cold war & not have to be the world's police anymore... thank god we could trust the Soviets to have done that! (slightest hope #3)
Perhaps if Clinton would have just forgiven Milosevich, we wouldn't have had to muck around there in the 90's... and lives would have been spared.... (not the innocent victims of his cleansing, but hey, WE would have gotten off with a few less KIA). (slightest hope #4)
And hey, if Bush would have just taken the hint after 9/11 and gone ahead and established a Muslim state here in the US, we wouldn't have ever had to worry about a terrorist attack AND save all those lives in Iraq! (slightest hope #5)
2007-04-15 11:56:48 · answer #3 · answered by JackB 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
we could see now, Syria is the suitable pal of Iran. Iran desires to kill individuals or convert all of them to Muslim. i ask your self why the president won't consult with them? You choose for taking photographs the president and notice how far you get. i would not care if he's Dem. or Rep. you won't get very far. you shop your Muslim hatred to your self. no longer involved.
2016-10-22 06:21:12 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Quite apart from the American military and people, Bush owes it to the people of Syria and Iran! Look at the estimated 60,000 - 600,000 Iraqis killed in the current Iraq invasion... shouldn't war be avoided af there is *any* possible alternative?
2007-04-15 11:44:04 · answer #5 · answered by The Oracle 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Why would Syria or Iran want to talk to us. So far the Surge has shown we don't even control the Green Zone.
2007-04-15 11:46:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Owe it???
It is his Constitution responsibility as Head of State to maintain dialogue with foreign nations and to help maintain the peace among them.
He thinks he is "the King of America" and can do what he dam well wants to. In addition, he doesn't have the intelligence, the vocabulary nor the knowledge to hold an intelligent diplomatic conversation.
He will soon be gone.....and we can all rejoice.
2007-04-15 11:45:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Yes, but GWB has made it clear that he doesn't care what the American people or anyone else thinks. He has said he will do what he wants even if his wife and dog are the only ones who will support him.
2007-04-15 14:13:09 · answer #8 · answered by BOOM 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
One name and title... Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.
2007-04-15 11:46:08 · answer #9 · answered by Doc 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Oh no, he has a "policy" that he doesn't talk to bad guys?
That's about as smart as not talking to the bullies parents until he's blown up the school.
They'll only talk when they "act right"? What kind of policy is that? Is it the "time out" method?
2007-04-15 11:45:07 · answer #10 · answered by Malthusian 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋