Republicans...whats your answer to this question about Bush's war on terror?

Question

If terrorism is a form of warfare,
and war terrorizes,
Then what exactly is
Bush's war on terror in Iraq?

Republican Terrorism?

Answer 1

I guess you could say that, but as Col Hackworth put it:

"And what the hell is terrorism, anyway? It's not a thing; it's not a place; it's not a person. It is a political and military strategy, that's all. Having a 'War On Terrorism' is as ridiculous as having a 'War on Flanking Maneuvers'. You'll end terrorism when there's no longer anything for anybody to get pissed off about."

That is why Republicans like it so much, a never ending supply of your money for corporate welfare! You are NEVER going to end terrorism!~ It will be here on the last day of this Earth!

Answer 2

If you have seen Star Wars youd kinda understand the under lying meaning of it all. Simple, Its about Oil and Money. Iraq has it, Saddam do not allow Americans to have it. So Bush comes with a plan to have a terror attack on american Soil. So he can then rally all the coalition forces to attack upon the terrorists. In the meantime the weapon sellers and arms dealers across the countries makes thier billions, this is rolling money. When the army is out, the shut down afghanistan at put in thier own puppets in there. Then Shift the peoples thinking to Al Qaeda and thier operations in the middle east, meanwhile troops are sent to Iraq to take off saddam and bring back oil to America. Now that the plan has taken place, the next thing is to plan for another attack, but this time in UK. So more western countries will join the terror war, and the peoples focus on Bush admin will move over to the UK, meanwhile he is still in power. Its all politics, the one that can control the people, controls power.

Answer 3

Libs will by no ability help something different than different libs. they are the main undemocratic human beings interior the comprehensive us of a. it is not substantial to them that a MAJORITY of electorate placed President Bush in place of work, two times. Being the vast babies that they are, it continuously should be their way. purely inspect how they behave on television information courses. they have their say, no rely how stupid this is, and then whilst the different ingredient is being offered, they do each and every thing they are able to to shout over the presenter. they are able to't have an equivalent replace of recommendations because of the fact they be attentive to that their recommendations are stupid and no person desires to hearken to them.

Answer 4

its a bunch of $%#$. If people in this country dont get their head around how this issue even works we will just go bankrupt fighting invisible enemies until we got no cash whatsoever. What are you fighting for if its not keeping the american lifestyle as it has been for some time. If we go broke and have no civil rights left whats the point???

Answer 5

I seem to remember 86% of the Democrats in office voting in favor of the "War on Terror". I also remember vividly Clinton, Carter, Kerry and Gore supporting the War on terror.

Guess your rediculous generalizaton just backfired on you.

Tell you what, I'll stop fighting terrorists, when you start preventing them from conducting action against the United States.

My bet is I'll be fighting terrorists for a long time....

Answer 6

Bush calls his 'war' a 'War on terror', and Bin laden calls his 'war' a 'War on Terror'.
Meanwhile, we pay, and the 'Wars' continue.
Stupid, isn't it?

Answer 7

Nice try, let me educate you. In English we have different words to mean different things.

War is defined as the use of organized violence against states. In order to conduct war you must follow certain international conventions - in other words laws of armed conflict.

Terrorists do not attack states, they commit crimes against civilians, they do not follow the laws of armed conflict, in fact they purposefully use those rules against us.

Therefore, by definition terrorism is not a form of warfare and terrorists are not soldiers.

Bush didn't attack anyone before 9/11. In fact he was attempting to cut back on spending on the military. If we should criticize Bush for anything it would be failing to attack UBL prior to 9/11.

What you may never come to understand is that our very way of life is threatened by a relatively small number of zealots and that it will take a war to settle our differences. Unless of course you want to surrender, give up your freedoms and live according to Sharia law. The zealots won't give up - obviously.

Answer 8

I don't want to see another question about that stupid sick old man. I'm SERIOUS. One day somebody will hurt George Bush.

Answer 9

lol theres no more republicans just mad republicans