World war two lasted 45 months. (For the USA)
2007-10-11
08:35:54
·
12 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Military
The USA can't beat rag tag insurgents?
2007-10-11
08:36:23 ·
update #1
What's wrong with this picture?
2007-10-11
08:36:53 ·
update #2
A Republican close to Bush stated we may have to be in Iraq fighting for 50 to 80 more years.
2007-10-11
08:38:05 ·
update #3
"TIME marches ON!" or have you heard different??
2007-10-11 20:41:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by conranger1 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Because Bush and Cheney can't swallow thier pride and admit that they screwed up then, and they are still screwing up now.
They thought the war would be a cakewalk and we'd be greeted as liberators like the allies going into paris after WW2. This shows an astonishing lack of understanding for middle eastern politics and nationalism. Would they accept an invading country as liberators if the country invaded the US to get rid of the tyrannt George Bush. I don't think so. I hate Bush, but I'd protect our country against others.
2007-10-11 08:47:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by chelseablue 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
War in Iraq was over. This is a war on Terror , you know how many blasts are occuring everyday in Iraq. This is not Iraqi Govt doing. This is the Anti-American called Terroists doing. You must kill them else they will come here for sure -Do you think they dont know a way to come here?
Just look how many of our soldiers,people,Journalists are beheaded everyday in those nations even before the war.
Just type in google example-Daniel Pearl, an American journalist who was cruelly beheaded in Pakistan. Wake up....
2007-10-11 08:44:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by ramakrishna_kolachina 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
All those small scale conflict crimes are the duty of the guy servicemen who dedicate them... and definite, they have been positioned on trial. Iraq replaced into invaded for motives that grew to become out to be poor, fake or otherwise selfish. How is an unprovoked, unjustified invasion of a u . s . no longer a conflict crime? might it extremely is cool with you all if the U. S. replaced into attacked for no reason different than entertainment, killing distinctive squaddies on the two factors with the civilian inhabitants taken care of with dignity and admire and all rules of conflict adhered to? Bush knew there'd be collateral injury whilst Iraq replaced into invaded, and of course, that passed off. Their killings have been by no potential justified... what are the families of victims going to think of, that their lifeless family individuals and acquaintances have been killed for the greater desirable good? the place are those WMDs? particularly, the place? If that particularly replaced right into a controversy, why are not we kicking down North Korea's door? If Saddam replaced into a minimum of smart sufficient to no longer use gas on coalition troops or perhaps Israel interior the 1st Gulf conflict of 1990-1991, why might he unexpectedly turn around and heavily use them for something besides inner grievances later on? Or the meant Al Qaeda-Saddam link. by no potential shown. They by no potential liked one yet another. they're basically there now because of the fact it particularly is a sturdy front to combat US troops on. It has no longer something to do with 9/11 interior the least. Afghanistan replaced right into a installation, justified reaction to 9/11. Why unencumber Iraq, and not North Korea, Saudi Arabia (for all those arguing approximately burqas and girls's rights), Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe and countless different international locations? Liberation isn't a sufficient excuse to invade a u . s . and actually kill hundreds, normally hundreds of people. no rely if or no longer a u . s .'s government is totalitarian, murderous and/or brutal sufficient to warrant exterior intervention is subjective and seems to be counted on man or woman favoritism - i comprehend i might quite see Zimbabwe liberated than Iraq. So extremely, no good motives given. The preliminary excuses have been given out of the two deception or lack of know-how. So if anybody feels i'm incorrect everywhere, enable me comprehend. we are going to butt heads approximately it later.
2016-11-08 00:37:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
BECAUSE THE HOUSE AND SENATE TIE THE HANDS OF THE SOLDERS IN THE FIELD.PLACE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT THAT PLACE THEM IN DANGER EVERY TIME THEY ENCOUNTER THE BAD GUYS. THEY DON T TRUST THE GENERALS IN THE FIELD AND QUESTION , EVER MOVE AND ACTION THEY TRY.
THIS IS NOT A BOXING MATCH,LETS TAKE OFF THE GLOVES AND BEAT THE BEJESUS OUT OF THESE JERKS .THEY DON T FOLLW ANY RULES,AND ARN T WORRIED WHAT THE WORLD THINKS ABOUT WHAT THEY DO.I AM NOT SAYING WE SHOULD USE GENOCIDE,BUT IF THEY WANTA DIE FOR ALLAH.
OTAAA .... HOPE THEY DON T RUN OUTTA VIRGINS!
2007-10-11 12:14:25
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Follow the money.
The people who own our representatives in Congress and the White House are making an s-load of money from this war.
Go rent the documentary "Why WE Fight".
2007-10-11 08:42:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by lunatic 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
What are you looking for with this? Your question isn't really specific enough for a real answer, only speculation by people on both sides of the political spectrum and arguments will surely break out.
2007-10-11 08:38:50
·
answer #7
·
answered by Courtney 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Happy Birthday!!!
2007-10-11 10:04:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by Toe Cutter 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Cause Bush is an idiot.
2007-10-11 08:44:01
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Because that's how long we have been over there messing things up.
2007-10-11 08:43:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by prekinpdx 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
because if we leave it makes bush look like a moron......as if that didnt happen years ago
2007-10-11 08:39:25
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋