What is wrong with these morons? And to top it off, the nutjob Obama would consider invading Pakistan.
Wait until John "Court Jester" Murtha hears about this!
2007-08-01 05:22:33 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Unlike Sudan, Iraq invaded Kuwait, they too asked for our help.
2007-08-01 05:27:12 · update #1
you know, the bastards who attacked us 9-11-01 are in Pakistan. maybe we should consider hunting them down. what's so crazy about that? i'm totally baffled, please explain.
There's no need for US forces in Darfur since the UN decided to send 26,000 troops there.
If Obama's a nutjob for wanting to go after al Qaida, what does that make Bush? why doesn't he want to get them?
2007-08-01 05:30:24 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The UN is sending troops to the Sudan....Pakistan is harboring terrorists, including Osama...Obama has the right idea....the Iraq war has not made us one iota safer.
Iraq invaded Kuwait in the 80's.
2007-08-01 05:26:56 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
If Pakistan is contributing to the terrorism problem the world is suffering from. It would be wiser then invading/occupying a country(Iraq) that had nothing to do with it. Have you seen the atrocities going on in the Sudan?
2007-08-01 05:28:36 · answer #3 · answered by gone 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
it somewhat is One Democrat who believes we can not in basic terms go away. a distinctive path is important yet to in undemanding terms pull out thoroughly, is a mistake. regardless of the indisputable fact that i replaced into against the invasion of Iraq, the u . s . a . is there now and it would be sure that Iraq is stabilized formerly it may even evaluate leaving. it's going to make the terrorist agencies think of that they might proceed the killing of harmless human beings because of the fact the u . s . a . will at last go away them on my own. it particularly is something the u . s . a . can not enable to take place! Pulling the troops out now would be an insult to each and all of the american infantrymen who've lost their lives. regardless of the indisputable fact that somewhat a number of my fellow Democrats might disagree with me, the fallen troops might have fallen for not something if the u . s . a . in basic terms "cuts and Runs"! i know it somewhat is demanding to maintain listening to approximately our infantrymen dropping their lives yet interior the long-term, i've got faith much greater lives would be stored. i'm military Reserve -retired so i know the way it would experience if the defense force replaced into advised... they might desire to flow away something unfinished.
2016-10-13 09:00:07 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unlike Iraq, the Sudanese actually asked for our help. Unlike Iraq, an engagment in the Sudan would be justified, and unlike Iraq, Pakistan is harboring Al-Queada leadership.
2007-08-01 05:26:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
What is Obama thinking, we can't go into Pakistan just because tehy are hidding Bin Laddin, and the sudan doesn't even have oil, who cares if thousands of people are dying, I can't get rich out of it.
2007-08-01 05:26:24 · answer #6 · answered by Chuckles 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, it's rational and smart to go after our attackers in Pakistan; it's nutty to make up reasons to attack a country which had neither attacked, or threated the US. It's even nuttier to think we can spread democracy at the point of a gun.
2007-08-01 05:28:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
We oughta send YOU to Sudan!
A conseravtive complaining about expanding a war?
WTF?
2007-08-01 05:26:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Democrats think our troops should be used for handing out food not for defending the country.
Let Canada hand out the food! Where is Canada on this?
2007-08-01 05:28:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋