Reminds me of when US folly forces were burning villages in Vietnam.." in order to save them" .
Face it....the USA is just making things far worse and making more enemies in the world.
The USA's goals in Iraq and Afghanistan are unrealistic and foolish.
But the USA elects idiots like LBJ and GWB...so what can one expect
2007-06-18 02:10:54 · 28 answers · asked by Roscoe R 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No. Iraq and Afganistan are just sad chapters in human history. Its all due to stupidity.
Local support is important to win any war. One can't go to war on the basis of lies.
2007-06-18 02:16:30 · answer #1 · answered by Zabanya 6 · 4⤊ 10⤋
Really like mass murder of innocents, don't you? So all the 3 year olds who have done nothing, should be slaughtered. Fortunately, not everyone is a brutal, mindless, hate-filled sub-human, so Bush wouldn't be able to get away with it. What won the hearts and minds of Germans was the Marshall Plan after the war, that helped them rebuild, and have a robust economy. Vietnam and Korea were not kinder or gentler, as we DID bomb, and drop Napalm on a lot of area and a lot of people. Only one of many legitimate reasons why everyone in the world hates us. As for Iraq: We illegally and immorally invaded a country that wasn't threatening us. We gave their resources to known thieves, and put the country in control of a bunch of liars, thieves, and murderers that the people had no respect for or faith in. We completely mis-managed everything after that -- rounding up people and torturing and raping them for months, when they had done nothing wrong; firing all the people of one sub-group within the country, thus fomenting sectarian violence; destroyed their infrastructure, and slaughtered non-combatants by the hundreds of thousands. That's why they want us out. Committing even more Crimes Against Humanity is NOT the answer, but simply makes everything worse. Why do I bother. Apparently the only thing you value is brutality and slaughter. Some of us have at least a shred of human decency -- some even more than that.
2016-05-18 10:45:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yep it's winning just because you left out the part that the Taliban were hiding behind those children doesn't make it a bad thing. Maybe you should go there and show them how to kill children?
2007-06-18 07:16:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yep, those were Military forces WE lost at the World Trade Center,.
I know, there were no civilians lost in WW 1 or WW 2. , American Revolution, American Civil War, ect....Whay aren't you citing those also?
Hate America if you want. Use illogic to create ignorant Hypotesis if you want.
It would be more simple if you just said "I hate Bush".
2007-06-18 04:52:55 · answer #4 · answered by Ken C 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yes. They liberal news media probably edited out the guns the children were holding, and "forgot" to mention the soldiers that they had just shot at.
2007-06-18 02:55:53 · answer #5 · answered by Georgia Bulldogs #1 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Ah, I see that I've run into another expert on US foreign policy; very well.
It's called "collateral damage." People die, it's a simple as that. In the time it took for you to read this, hundreds of people died in various accidents.
No rational person would question US involvement vs. the Third Reich in World War II. But American and British bombers leveled entire cities during the European bombing campaigns. Now, we've spent billions on precision weaponry in order to mitigate collateral damage, but it still happens.
You are suggesting that we allow Al Qaeda to kill American citizens at will, not retaliate, do nothing to try to prevent it because . . . ***GASP*** SOMEBODY MIGHT GET HURT!!!
Give me a break.
2007-06-18 02:39:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋
Lets put a different spin on this story:
Terrorist, use children as shields... hide them in the bacement of thier strongholds, so that if they are ever attacked, they can at least blame the US for killing innocent people...
We were watching the place for over 24 hours.... there was not a sign of a single kid.... if there were, we would not have attacked....
but maybe you´re right... damn the USA for trying to stop people that would hide behind children and blow up markets and school......
2007-06-18 02:22:58 · answer #7 · answered by James R 3 · 7⤊ 4⤋
Actually, the 7children were being held inside the building and not allowed to leave by Al Qaeda/ Taliban fighters. The outrage is mostly at them from the Afghans for using children as human shields. Try reading the whole story instead of just the headlines.
2007-06-18 02:19:07 · answer #8 · answered by booman17 7 · 11⤊ 4⤋
Since they won't grow up, yeah, sounds like a win to mme. We really should be bombing all known Taliban sites, even those in Pakistan. A surprise firebomb raid at night would be great.
2007-06-18 02:20:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
did u vote , did u help with anyones campaign only u as a voter can make a change
2007-06-18 02:31:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Rabble rabble rabble. The children wouldn't get harmed if the terrorists weren't using them as human shields and living among the good people. If Dems would stop protecting the terrorists we might be able to let the troops do their jobs.
Remember that Kerry was part of the village plundering ;)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1972VVAW.html
Instead of telling half the story give a link to your source and let the others read more into your half truths and let them see that the terrorists killed 35 people...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070618.w2afghandead0618/BNStory/International/home
2007-06-18 02:21:23 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 4⤋