2007-06-15 05:02:18 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
worl peace now- my son is in Iraq now!My midle son just got back from there and a son in law is off the coast of Iran currently, anotherwords you haven't a clue
2007-06-15 08:27:20 · update #1
We should ask Ted Kennedy that question....*hiccup* cheers! *hiccup*
Paul - You must have typed "how many troops in Iraq must die before we hide under the rock we were in before 9/11?" In white font...I don't see that anywhere on your question! lol.
2007-06-15 07:05:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Horse and buggys are also linked to fatalities.
That's a great argument for comprehensive public transit systems in America tho.
2007-06-15 05:07:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
i'm not sure with reference to the pony or buggy, yet i'll be the 1st to %. up a brick and hurl in by a shop window as my buddies loot the situation and set hearth to automobiles and such.
2016-10-17 08:59:01 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What about the horrible green house gasses that all those horses would create? No No it is back to walking around like nomads for us. That way we can all be safe and Green friendly.
2007-06-15 05:09:31 · answer #4 · answered by Mother 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately, that will never happen--going backward in time regarding transportation modes. The only people in the U.S. who use horse and buggies all the time are the Amish and Mennonite communities in certain states. People are too used to speed and convenience; it would never work in today's society. Traffic accidents produce small numbers of deaths compared to wars, cancer, and heart disease.
2007-06-15 05:09:39 · answer #5 · answered by nolajazzyguide 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Wow, nice try. Too bad for your argument that you're comparing apples and oranges.
Cars, when used properly, provide a valuable service and do not kill. In today's society, cars are pretty much a necessity. the fact that so many are killed by cars does not mean that the purpose of cars is to kill, or that doing away with cars will be a positive.
The war in Iraq is pointless, has never had a point, and continuing it will do nothing but kill. It is not necessary or valuable. The longer it goes, the more enemies it will create, and the more volatile the area will become.
See the very obvious and unarguable difference? (Yes, I know, you'll try to argue it, but you won't be able to do so with facts or logic)
2007-06-15 05:12:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 6⤋
This question involves logical thinking, I don't believe you will get a logical answer from our friends on the other side of the isle.
2007-06-15 05:09:09 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋
GREAT question, PG!!! But then libs would be asking how much more poo must we smell in the streets until we do away with the horses and start walking?
2007-06-15 05:07:49 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I'm a lot more concerned about the money it's costing me, as a tax payer. Not to say I'm unconcerned about soldier deaths, but they knew what they were signing up for. I, on the other hand, didn't sign up for a damn thing and I get stuck with a slice of the bill?
Totally not cool, man.
2007-06-15 05:08:06 · answer #9 · answered by Athena 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋
I say we cut and run and return to running. Makes more sense in context.
2007-06-15 05:07:12 · answer #10 · answered by rockstarnomad 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋