English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Clearly, in 2001 and early 2002, the Republicans had the opportunity to surround and destroy Al Qaeda and the Taliban with overwhelming force. But they chose not to. They chose to let them flee to Pakistan.

Is that any way to fight the War on Terror? By not finishing off the terrorists?

2007-07-19 14:34:00 · 16 answers · asked by Incognito 5 in Politics & Government Politics

Thanks, but no thanks Chunky.

2007-07-19 14:37:55 · update #1

Ya Stephanie, they'll blame Clinton. Even though Clinton got closer to Killing Bin Laden than Bush ever will.

2007-07-19 14:39:15 · update #2

TINKER, they're not in Iraq.

And we're not occupying Iraq, they're occupying us in Iraq.

2007-07-19 14:40:18 · update #3

Robert- I agree with you 100%, I'm giving the republicans a dose of their own medicine today.

They don't seem to like it.

2007-07-19 14:43:38 · update #4

Hey verda, kidding or not, I live in NYC and watched 9/11 up close and personal. Whatever you're saying, seriously is not cool.

2007-07-19 14:45:00 · update #5

Great point lltrix. I'm not buyin' it, and judging from 2006 it doesn't seem like many people are buyin' it anymore either.

2007-07-19 14:47:25 · update #6

16 answers

Oh I bet someone will find a way to blame Clinton. They always find a way to blame Clinton.
The war on terror is not meant to be won. The war on terror is meant to be an ongoing propaganda tool to keep the uneducated voting based on fear.

2007-07-19 14:37:38 · answer #1 · answered by Stephanie is awesome!! 7 · 11 8

I am not a Republican. But I think questions like this really move the debate nowhere,

I disagree with Republicans on many (most?) issues. I disagree with Republicans on HOW to fight terrorists. But it is ridiculous to suggest that Republicans support terrorists.

Al Qaeda and, specifically, Bin Laden, were not destroyed because they eluded capture.

You might recall, that they eluded capture despite Clinton's effort, and although a fellow democrat, Clinton did not support terrorism.

I wish more assets had been used to find Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, instead of going into Iraq. Ok, so I disagree with Republicans. But, Republicans certainly do not support (or tolerate) terrorism, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong-headed.

2007-07-19 14:40:33 · answer #2 · answered by robert_dod 6 · 2 1

Its easy to see, that even google earth could help get Ben Laden if we really wanted too!! Actually, they should upgrade their map of the region, and lunch a public survey of the whole place, so millions of people will get a part of the map to survey for finding a 6 feet 6 long beard man in middle of a mountain! I guess we will be more effective than the military has been!
Actually, judging from what I know and see, Clinton AND Bush want to keep him alive, for a reason or another! Of course the reason now, its because if he die tomorrow, all this war will be finished, and they don`t want it to finish!!

2007-07-19 15:30:18 · answer #3 · answered by Jedi squirrels 5 · 1 0

Because Bin laden and the CIA, Cheney, Gates and Rumsfeld all work together. Everyone knows that Robert Gates and Cheney helped form Al Qaeda and the Taliban with the help of the CIA back in the 1980's. It's in Robert Gates' book of his memoirs. Do you really think that that support system has stopped? Al Qaeda isn't even attacking our troops in Iraq. They are helping create a division in Iraq between the Shiite and Sunni. Sure, they attack here and there but those are usually Sunni's who joined with Al Qaeda. But the majority of attacks by Al Qaeda are against Sunni and Shiite. It's called creating a diversion while the U.S comes in and gets Malaki's government to sign papers that gives 80% of the oil to the American oil corporations. This is what is going on right now. They are on the verge of making a deal. It will go through because Malaki's head is on the line.
How can our government say it is defeating the enemy (Al Qaeda) one minute and the next minute say that Al Qaeda has gained pre-9/11 strength and then some. Who makes this crap up? Who is benefitting from this propaganda? And, Who believes this crap?

2007-07-19 14:45:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4 2

Follow the money....the NGO's [like Halliburton, Blackwater, DynCorp, etc.] in both the Iraq and Afghanistan war zones are getting incredibly rich by providing mercenary warriors, war materiel, laundry, food service, etc., to the military. Had the Al Quaeda and Osama bin Missing been squashed in 2001-2, there would have been no profit to these folks. Therefore, the "war on terror" was beneficial to Bush and Cheney's corporate chums...so why destroy the source of the profits? It's business as usual, as usual.

2007-07-19 14:46:07 · answer #5 · answered by constantreader 6 · 3 2

"Democrats and liberals are and continuously have been the backbone of yankee Freedom and liberty for all." certainly, different than whilst it got here to Blacks interior the South. Democrats created and enforced Jim Crow from 1877 till the mid Sixties. Democrat governors stood at school doors, blocking off Blacks from entering even after the final court docket instructed them they did no longer could settle for separate from now on. undergo in strategies that ole favourite from the Democrat governor of Alabama, "Segregation now, segregation day after today, segregation perpetually." It grow to be a Republican President who had to deliver in troops to guard those human beings, consisting of toddlers, whilst they exercised their rights and won loss of life threats and have been called the N be conscious as they walked to college. All Democrats! enable us to no longer ignore that it grow to be a Democrat President that have been given us into Korea and a Democrat President that have been given us into Viet Nam and Democrat who escalated the combating. Liberals experience sorry for terrorists, and criminals of each and every description and picture they deserve a 10th and 11th and 12th hazard. Liberal Democrats faux to be for the persons and truthfully factor arms, yet no criminal or the different undesirables greater advantageous flow into their community. shop waving that flag and a few liberal Democrat will have confidence it. We Republicans not greater advantageous.

2016-10-09 02:40:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Ya just can't send an army into Pakistan, even if you are chasing Al Qaeda.

A lil note to kyle: quit mixing your vodka with red bull. No one likes an agitated drunk.

2007-07-19 15:29:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

It's apparent that Bush is the biggest terrorist recruiter for Al Qaeda. Look how many have signed up since he began his reign of terror. On top of that, recent news reports inicate that Al Qaeda is srengthening. I don't know why they support the terrorists. They seem to enjoy watching the numbers grow while feeding our troops to some nutty insurgents in the middle east. Let's bring them home.

2007-07-19 14:39:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 8 3

No one really supports terrorists except for other terrorists

2007-07-19 14:52:33 · answer #9 · answered by Lindsey G 5 · 1 1

we Conservatives love terrorist, maybe we can get them to blow up another big building "maybe with you inside" then we can convince the American people that the war in Iraq is legit, but if we don't at least we got rid of you.kidding of course,

2007-07-19 14:40:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

fedest.com, questions and answers