And Al Qaeda?
2007-09-04 04:53:09 · 25 answers · asked by DON'T BURN ME 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The world may never know.
But the liberals have never supported the military, they only tolerate us when the Clinton's send us on peace keeping missions.
2007-09-04 04:58:57 · answer #1 · answered by MP US Army 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
al Qaeda is in Waziristan, Pakistan.
Iraq was a huge mistake because al Qaeda was Not in Iraq under the Saddam regime.
Maybe troop morale would be higher if we didn't have a fool running the country.
2007-09-04 05:00:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
If standing against al-Qaeda is so important to the Republicans, then why did Bush focus on invading a country that was in no way involved in the 9/11 attacks instead of going after the actual culprit, Osama bin Laden?
2007-09-04 04:59:03 · answer #3 · answered by tangerine 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
We did stand behind Bush for the Iraq war in the beginning.
That is until we saw that Mission accomplished wasn't being accomplished.
Where we you guys when Clinton was trying to get bin Laden? Where were you guys when Clinton was bombing Iraq? Wag the dog.
Oh that's right. Newt was too busy having an affair while trying to impeach Clinton for lying about sex.
By the way, speaking of Al Qaeda. Where is bin Laden? Anyone know?
2007-09-04 05:21:24 · answer #4 · answered by angelpuppyeyes 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Troop morale would be higher if the government would secure our borders, deport illegals,crack down on crime and drugs, stop corporations from taking your house if they decide they want it to build on, stop giving under the table deals to construction companies like Haliburton and Blackwater and be more interested in our troops than making profit for special interest.
2007-09-04 05:28:22 · answer #5 · answered by jackie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think if they just supported their country and fellow man a little bit more it will greatly help this country. However, I don't think troops will care at all, they are just there to do their duty to country and return to their families safely. One big thing that will help is if they will stop sending them for so long. We are talking about guys who spend over a year in Iraq an such places. Can you imagine being away from your family for that long, and not knowing if you will ever see them again.
2007-09-04 05:01:49 · answer #6 · answered by LnM 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Troop morale would be higher if our troops had shorter tours, better pay, better veteran's benefits to look forward to, and a clearly defined exit strategy. Keeping them at war indefinitely is doing nothing to boost morale.
2007-09-04 05:02:28 · answer #7 · answered by Bon Mot 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Troop morale would be higher if we were fighting for something real! Gets kind of depressing fighting for Bush's big oil conglomerates and the top 1% rich snooty nosed snobs. Killing inocent people for no reason and spending billions for "war games" training.
Sorry biff, there's nothing patriotic about murder! (warmonger)
2007-09-04 05:01:40 · answer #8 · answered by chuck b 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I was thinking that Al Qaeda was not going to stop fighting until they are dead as "martyrs"...but you are probably right. They would give up once they see more people in America with American flag stickers and yellow magnets on their cars.
2007-09-04 04:57:36 · answer #9 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No, a surprising number of "liberals" supported the war in Iraq. And everyone supported getting bin Laden in Afghanistan.
Morale would be higher if Bush had had a strategy at the outset, or even if he came up with one or two years after the invasion of Iraq. I'm not sure we have a strategy even now. Counterinsurgency and the surge are still just tactics.
2007-09-04 04:57:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
Troop morale seems quite high and good. Our troops have a sense that history is in its hands, and, indeed it is. Now, about getting a President wise in using the military...
2007-09-04 04:57:38 · answer #11 · answered by alphabetsoup2 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋