Because the truth doesnt support their philosophy.
We keep electing them because theyre slick, hide who they are, and appeal to all the goofballs that want abortion, gay marriage, and for us to never go to war for any reason.
2007-07-11 08:14:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
5⤋
each conflict is fought for some aims set before hand. The conflict in Iraq replaced into additionally started with 2 aims and those have been (a million) removal of weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) and (2) removal of Saddam government because of the fact of its help for terrorists. the 1st purpose ought to no longer be carried out because of the fact there have been NO WMDs what so ever and 2d purpose replaced into no longer sufficiently super to truly salary a conflict. US ought to eliminate Saddam with different ability like a coup, inner flow via Iraqis and so on (as US has performed it in different international locations interior the previous), so it truly is secure to declare that the easily purpose replaced into to have actual administration over the oil wells and that has been carried out. conflict against Terror is a commercial slogan thats why neither UN nor majority of the international locations participated/ supported the conflict. the only international locations that actively participated have been people who had direct difficulty with the oil. The harmless civilians and US squaddies being killed in Iraq is infact an act of terrorism and ought to end. In all of the fairness all of the foreign places forces must be sent back from iraq and Iraqis must be permit loose to decide upon formation of their government and how they want to stay. No usa has any proper to intrude in yet another usa's inner affairs as all of the international locations interior the international are equivalent and characteristic the main stunning to stay freely and independently.
2016-10-20 21:12:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by manjeet 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
There wasn't a terrorism problem in Iraq at all until we got there. How many 9/11 participants were from Iraq btw? 90% of the fighters are insurgents who aren't really concerned with the global war on terror. Most could care less about the goals of al Qaeda. This is primarily a civil conflict.
2007-07-11 08:53:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by Jeff P 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think you're missing the argument.
There is, without a doubt, international terrorism deep within Iraq. However, before we went in Al Qaeda was more than likely not in Iraq.
2007-07-11 08:58:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by ouranticipation 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Most of the insurgents are nationalists, fighting an invasion and occupation by a terrorist force that has murdered, incarcerated, and tortured their people, as well as giving their resources to known thieves, and generally destroying their country.
It's amazing to me that people who use the word 'lieberal' blindly, mindlessly, heartlessly follow the most lying administration in history.
"We've never said 'Stay the course.'"
"We never said Saddam Hussein was beind 9/11."
"Bin Laden, dead or alive." "I don't much care about Bin Laden." "Never a day goes by I don't think about Bin Laden."
"The firings were based on job performance." "We never said the firings were performance-related."
How many lies do you have to be told before you're capable of realizing you're being lied to?
2007-07-11 13:17:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by tehabwa 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Of course there is, now that we've given Al Queda a recruiting strategy. The terrorists now use Iraq as their battle cry. How exactly did that help make America safer?
2007-07-11 08:10:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
There was no international terrorism in Iraq until G. Dumbya opened its borders to any wacko that wanted to come and take a shot at our troops. Hmmm now he wants to open our borders the same way . . . good plan Bushies?
2007-07-11 08:08:09
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
lol, no liberal denies that there is international terrorism in Iraq. Most just try to point out that it was almost non-existent in Iraq until we decided to take over their country and give people from all countires more reason and opportunity to attack us.
2007-07-11 08:09:22
·
answer #8
·
answered by Frank 6
·
4⤊
0⤋
I don't see where anyone is claiming that in the article you cite. Where is the word Liberal or as you call it lieberals. Maybe the one with lie in their name is you.
2007-07-11 08:08:24
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
Of course there is. US troops raped and murdered a 12 year girl. Syrian fighters kill our soldiers. What are you talking about, froofie? Which liberals can you quote, Einstein?
That's sound pretty close to what the insurgents are doing.
2007-07-11 08:07:18
·
answer #10
·
answered by Truth 5
·
4⤊
1⤋
there was NONE until we started it. You conservative republicans make me sad. if you were smart you would have spelled "Liberal" right. Bush is the liar, he lied about why we were going into Iraq and about WM D's.
2007-07-11 08:11:31
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋