If a John Edwards campaigner is out there, I'd love to hear how you'd answer this since your man says he wouldn't fight in Iraq any more but would fight "where the terrorists are."
2007-05-28 03:20:32 · 10 answers · asked by Dan 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Already, we have several who missed the point. The question is not about if they were there beforehand. The questions are: 1) Are they there now? and 2) Does arguing about why we got there change the fact that they are there now? Please answer the questions if you think you have something to contribute.
2007-05-28 03:35:29 · update #1
To map: I've heard John Edwards silly argument in response to criticisms about him. Isn't an upcoming election about talking about the issues and deciding who we support more? Why should we put the muzzle on logical argument about what is best for our country? He says we should "unite" but who should we unite around when people have different takes on an issue? If Edwards had a real argument he would use it and if you're an Edwards supporters than he is your man. Reason dictates it so.
2007-05-28 03:48:36 · update #2
Oh and I forget to say to map that I support Rudy Giuliani who is not afraid to look at the reality that we face rather than the illusion that we'd like to have.
To X: Your argument is precisely the one that you claim I am making. Your issue is why did we get in Iraq in the first place. My question did not focus on this and therefore your answer has no relevance.
Even still, I'm glad you brought this argument to my attention. I will now use it to argue against people who argue against going to the Iraq War. You commit the same fallacy by implying the War in Iraq created al Qaeda. It did not, they existed beforehand. So therefore the War in Iraq is not a cause of al Qaeda. In fact, the War in Iraq is the battleground of the war they declared on us. The War merely shifts the battleground from our mainland to another part of the world. Personally I'd rather have them fighting there then here.
2007-05-28 06:05:44 · update #3
To map: Thanks for making another response. I think that Edwards getting defensive and trying to tell Rudy, McCain, and Romney to be quiet and stop arguing is proof enough that there really isn't a dialog going on. In that you're correct. A dialog takes two parties to discuss. If one side makes such good points that the other side can only muster an effective "shut up, you're being mean" then there really is no dialog. It's just one side that won an argument and one that lost.
2007-05-28 06:11:49 · update #4
Wherever they go, obliterate them.
2007-05-28 03:25:46 · answer #1 · answered by flushles 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I've been hearing more and more people on the right try to justify the invasion in 2003 based on the situation now. I could begin to respect Bush if he would admit to monumentally screwing up. At the same time I also want to know why he ignored a CIA report issued 2 months before the invasion that predicted a growing insurgency and Al Queada gaining a foothold in Iraq.
Last, don't call Edwards "your man". It condescending. Which one the the republicans is "your man". We have to get away from this us vs them mentality in this country otherwise we're never going to accomplish anything worth wild.
2007-05-28 10:40:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You're question is a form of political spin-cycling known as subversive redirection.
Essentially, a question such as this attempts to divert the dialouge from the real issues by focusing on a particular sub-issue that, while related, has no particular bearing on the subject matter.
For example: You beat your wife because you think she is cheating on you.
Ok. But you STILL beat your wife.
Our removal of Saddam destabilized the country and allowed Al Quaeda to move in. We were already unpopular in the country and this move made us pretty much despised, so the people are (at best) neutral to the actions of this group.
We're fighting a guerilla group in a foriegn country full of people who want to see us leave. This is not the correct theatre for this battle.
~X~
2007-05-28 11:10:43 · answer #3 · answered by X 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Remember, according to reports al Quida was not in Iraq prior to us going there. Bush was afraid to really go after them , so they came after him.. in Iraq. And now they re stronger than ever because he did not keep after them when he had them cornered.. but pulled back for some reason.
And John Edwards is right. We should fight the terrorists where they are but instead we have helped to start a civil war and now are caught in the middle of it and can do nothing about terrorists or anything else. Thanks Bush!
2007-05-28 10:27:12 · answer #4 · answered by Debra H 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The terrorists only came in when Bush (the idiot) attacked Iraq.....If the troops all move to Afghanistan the terrorists will follow there too, instead of wasting time refereeing a civil war....Bush has taken his eye off terrorism and had to channel 150,000 troops and hundreds of billions of dollars in the failed war in Iraq, instead of chasing Bin Laden (who would have been caught by now---except for the quagmire in Iraq)
2007-05-28 10:26:46 · answer #5 · answered by Greg F 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
We do need to take care of the problems that Bush created in Iraq, the problem I have is that all the people who were the architects of the war and who said it would be easy are still in power.
Doesn't that bother you in the least?
2007-05-28 10:24:55 · answer #6 · answered by ck4829 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we attacked them.
2007-05-28 10:26:43 · answer #7 · answered by mr upset 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No, unfortunately what is done, is, done. Iraq will be a problem for at least a decade I think.
2007-05-28 10:27:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Every anti American arab fighter will be calling themselves al-quaida from now on.
They have nothing to do with the real al-quaida, whose concern is Saudi Arabia.
2007-05-28 10:26:41 · answer #9 · answered by commandercody70 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No they don't change that fact, but they are grounds for impeachment.
2007-05-28 10:24:51 · answer #10 · answered by domangelo 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋