When people want to go to war without explaining what criteria must be met to signal they've one, THAT IS A REALLY GOOD CLUE THAT THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING! What has to happen to put a check in the Win column? Do they know even now?
2007-08-03 07:54:48 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
you mean like all of the Democraps who Voted FOR the war in iraq?
2007-08-03 07:57:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I like how every time George Bush's 'reason' for invading was proven wrong, he just made up another one:
1)He knows there are WMD's in Iraq.
2)No WMD's found-Now it is a mission against an "evil axis"
3)To liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein
4)Establishing democracy
5)To stop sectarian violence
I am sure as time goes on he will come up with more excuses. None justified, of course.
2007-08-03 15:03:35 · answer #2 · answered by horacepembleton 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The American news media were almost unanimous in their cheer leading for the war. Fortunately, those of us who live in Canada got more impartial coverage of the Bush administration case and realized that it was a con job from the get-go. This is why Canada never participated in the Iraq war.
2007-08-03 15:30:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What has to happen to put a check in the Win column?
when the Iraqi government can run itself , this has been the goal from day one . Of course this is reality
2007-08-03 14:57:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Bush has explained his criteria for going to war. And it was right to go into Iraq.
The war there just needs to be fought right. (No political correctness)
2007-08-03 15:01:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Their goals are to bring democracy and stabilization to Iraq.
The problem with these goals is it is impossible to identify when they've been met. What is stabilization? Is 40 car bombings in a month ok, how about 25? 15?
btw... won not one!
2007-08-03 15:00:18 · answer #6 · answered by McCoy 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I did oppose the invasion of Iraq when it was being debated. For that matter, I opposed invading Afghanistan. Invasions didn't strike me as the best way to discourage future terrorist attacks.
2007-08-03 15:07:58 · answer #7 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, a lot of liberals were for Iraq in the beginning, including Hillary, are you saying that they are too stupid?
2007-08-03 14:57:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
What's ironic about your statement is that fact that the "world's smartest woman" (hillary) was duped by the "worlds's dumbest man". I don't think that says much at all about her intellect or knowledge about much of anything.
2007-08-03 15:12:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'll go back further than that. I didn't vote for Daddy Bush nor his idiot son. I saw trouble coming. Dahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
2007-08-03 15:00:39 · answer #10 · answered by docie555@yahoo.com 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋