http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq;_ylt=AnssOsIg7x8_O4j1x3.XEhSMwfIE
If we can't keep the green zone safe then why are we spending 12 billion a month in iraq?
2007-07-10 10:47:33 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
but it's not called fred it is called the green zone.
2007-07-10 10:52:04 · update #1
soldiers join to fight for our country no questions asked. Maybe they should be asking questions like why are we here policing a civil war, if they are not already.
2007-07-10 10:57:27 · update #2
Emerald City is more like it. Rajiv Chandrasekaran put the perfect name on the place.
For many years Saddam could live there and pretend that actual Iraqis did not exist. After the Americans moved in they were even more removed from reality there.
Such Reality vacuums are expensive to maintain however even among otherwise honest people. But the Gang Of Pirates rushing in to the Fantasy Feeding Frenzy were apparently promoting honesty like a brothel promotes celibacy.
There is not enough money in the universe to keep that going even two years longer much less forever. I hope they have kept the rooftop helicopter pads better maintained than the other things because they will be needed soon.
2007-07-10 10:50:38 · answer #1 · answered by Freedem 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Wow! 26 people killed in the Green Zone in less than 3 months, and 3 killed today. But I think they need to keep calling it the Green Zone for 2 reasons: first, green is a "hopeful" color, to use a favorite adjective of our President, and the area outside the Green Zone is already called the Red Zone.
Sorry to say, but I think the only reason we're still in Iraq spending 12 billion a month is because Bush keeps a bust of his hero Churchill in his office and tries everyday to emulate his steadfastness. The irony is that Churchill put Iraq together and withdrew his troops from a unified country, and Bush is doing just the opposite.
2007-07-10 11:24:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
there is no regulation declaring which you do not might desire to salute in a try against zone. that's basically a prepare handed right down to ward off figuring out to a sniper looking at US troops who's significant and could be taken out. many times we don't besides the indisputable fact that it relies upon on the chain of command. whilst the conflict first began we did not salute yet after Baghdad fell and the bases began springing up they began imposing salutes (which wasn't elementary from a distance thinking all of us wears subdued rank there as against the fantastic rank officers placed on in garrison). many times the try against outposts have not have been given any salute regulations because of the fact that they are many times in the view of the locals and we don't salute outdoors of the cord.
2016-09-29 11:32:04 · answer #3 · answered by piekarski 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like the Green Zone - there's a certain irony to it.
2007-07-10 10:50:51 · answer #4 · answered by CHARITY G 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
LOL, good question. Are the GOP asking that question yet? Or, are they as dumb as a worm in a chicken house still?
2007-07-10 11:08:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's war buddy. And, like with any other war, people on the other side of those walls want us dead. Sometimes the succeed, other times they don't. We soldiers know the dangers we got ourselves into. No one joins the military thinking they'll be planting flowers in Kentucky.
2007-07-10 10:54:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
Lets color code it like our very effective alert system, anyone for Orange.
2007-07-10 10:53:47 · answer #7 · answered by Dangerous 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's just a name. You could call it 'Fred,' it wouldn't make any difference.
2007-07-10 10:51:34 · answer #8 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It would be more appropriate
2007-07-10 10:50:48 · answer #9 · answered by sixfingeredman 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋