2007-07-14 13:50:22 · 7 answers · asked by ? 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It was pursuant to an Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which set forth specific criteria as the mission objectives.
The text of the original AUMF is linked below.
2007-07-14 14:01:09 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Not sure I understand the question. The US military attacked the regime in Iraq. I have never heard of a permanent attack and not sure what that is. There are those that say nothing is permanent. So I guess if the choices are permanent or limited, I would go with limited.
2007-07-14 13:57:06 · answer #2 · answered by hemi_55 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Limited
2007-07-14 13:53:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Depends on which spin you are listening to... I would say it was a "limited declaration of war so that we can get your oil and then go home if we can figure out how" strike.... See,, it's easy!
2007-07-14 13:55:24 · answer #4 · answered by Debra H 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
A permanent one. Get used to it Barney! We may even bestow that democracy thing on other countries.
2007-07-14 13:55:34 · answer #5 · answered by Page 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
permanently skewed by his lack of intelligence(iq not military) and limited by his lack of common sense.
2007-07-14 13:56:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
He said the war on terror would last decades. As long as the fighting is over there. I'm all for it. If (GOD FORBID) we pull out and lose the war as the Democrats want, and the war comes here, will you be so glib?
2007-07-14 13:55:05 · answer #7 · answered by Homeschool produces winners 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋