right after 9/11 that the war on terror would last decades ? we are not fighting a country here people. we are fighting a belief and it doesnt have borders. these radical muslims who believe that killing babies is just fine as long as they get there virgins in the afterlife are going to take many years to KILL OFF. and make no mistake about they will have to be KILLED they are not going to sit down at a table and discus this like rational adults. am i on the right track here ?
2007-05-23 03:55:15 · 9 answers · asked by roger a 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I remember and I understand.
Let's see how many people let the media think for them instead of doing any research for themselves.
2007-05-23 04:04:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Killing them will take not just decades but forever, because we always manage to create more when we blow them up. The best strategy to protect America from terrorism is
1) become energy indepedent
2) withdraw military forces from the Arab world
3) not pander to Israel but treat them like anybody else
Since this greatly decreases our military spending, it has the added benefit of making us more competitive longterm against China.
October says "what does Iraq have to do with WoT" - even if it had nothing to do with WoT before march 2k3, it now has everything to do with WoT because a failed state in Iraq is as or more conducive to terrorism than pre-9/11 Afghanistan.
2007-05-23 11:03:28 · answer #2 · answered by lockedjew 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Seems like it some days doesn't it.? I truly barely recall it myself and I stand behind the effort in Iraq. How it happened I agree it was a faulty mission. Bush needs to address that. Maybe this week the Hill will actually do something to support a solution to worn out troops and gear desperately needed to protect them.
TY.
2007-05-23 11:01:01 · answer #3 · answered by Mele Kai 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The question has always been What does Iraq have to do with the war on terror?
Shouldn't we be in Saudi Arabia where the terrorist came from?
Shouldn't we be in Iran which finances terrorism?
Shouldn't we be in Pakistan which now has terrorist training Camps?
Shouldn't we have more of a presence in Afghanistan where terrorist are still active?
Again, what are we doing in Iraq?
2007-05-23 11:02:55 · answer #4 · answered by October 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You're on something, I'll give you that. May I bring it to mind that if, IF we were fighting a war on Islam, we'd be starting in the worst place? I mean, seriously, what about Saudi Arabia? What about Iran? But that just sounds too much like common sense. Keep drinking the koolaid, man. You're on your way.
2007-05-23 11:14:37 · answer #5 · answered by Huey Freeman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, you have allowed fear to cloud your reason.
This is not a crusade to kill muslims. This is a war in Iraq to do whatever they say the reason we are there is this week. George Bush turned a little popcorn fart of a rich boy into the figurehead of the jihadist movement. Bin Laden couldn't have done better himself.
The way to stop terror is to treat it as what it is- murder. Capture and punish those responsible, not those who aren't.
2007-05-23 11:02:01 · answer #6 · answered by Schmorgen 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
last i checked it their were no car bombs in iraq and in most of the middle east until america came, and it wasnt iraq who started the war, as for the "radical" muslims there no radical muslims. thats like saying a warmongering passifist. and if you actually read about muslim religion there are no 70 virgins, so dont start shitting out of your mouth when you dont know anything about the subject you are talkingt about
2007-05-23 11:03:56 · answer #7 · answered by Mr. A$$ 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We would all be better off if BUSH had DIED in his sleep of natural causes Ten(10*) years ago...
2007-05-23 11:41:46 · answer #8 · answered by dca2003311@yahoo.com 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I remember
2007-05-23 10:57:50 · answer #9 · answered by pedohunter1488 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋