Sorry to Put this one up But Mike a San Diego Marine sitting next to me requested it. He feels it is the perfect reflection of a Liberal question. This is not a serious question. Just a table full of Marines (US and Brits) and a few of Us Army folk.
2007-10-23 22:58:59 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
your a hottie,,,and yes the fires could be due to liberal friction in C.A....cause the surge is working,,,,I will post o few question on that later,,,chow,,,you hottie,,be safe god bless...freepress
2007-10-23 23:51:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm glad this is not a serious question, and I wonder what the question being reflected on was - must have been an absolute beauty.
Sadly, some people have not only taken it seriously, they've answered it by agreeing!!!!!!
Let Mike know that anyone who's lived through one of these and who's not a maniac arsonist would be praying that its over with as little harm as possible.
To the fools who think its some political stunt - you are really sad sick people - maybe you should make yourself useful and go out and help rather than spouting conspiracy theories that make the X-Files look sane.
2007-10-24 02:41:15 · answer #2 · answered by fordfalcon1953 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wow, how insanely usual, I've never heard of large forest fires in usually saturated southern California. ZOMG GIANT LIBERAL CONSPIRACY!
The surge is a success? I'm glad. Perhaps now we can reduce our troop numbers a bit?
I appreciate the fact that your question was a joke... what I find disturbing is that it was actually taken seriously by anyone.
2007-10-23 23:44:26 · answer #3 · answered by brooks b 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
?? properly, I supply you this, you researched your question. So I definately admire you for dealing with the hassle. and that i checked for accuracy (on a number of it, no longer all) too. good job!! I unquestionably have a pair subject concerns with this in spite of the incontrovertible fact that. a million. you're comparing apples and oranges. each and every conflict is distinctive. Our WWII losses might have doubled if we did no longer drop the bombs. could we evaluate doing that now, as Nixon curiously did for the duration of Vietnam? 2. undergo in recommendations "challenge finished"? develop into that the tip of the conflict? Technically, we are actually not in a conflict suitable now. in line with danger this is the reason the dems are disenchanted. what's the challenge in Iraq? First it develop into WMD's. Then while that became out to be a bald-confronted lie, we shifted to "isn't it greater useful now that Saddam isn't in capacity?". After that, it develop into "we would desire to furnish stability till a central authority is formed". All that has been finished. So, what's subsequent? what's the challenge? Oh, now we would desire to continually wait till the Iraqi military is as much as job. BTW, undergo in recommendations how Rumsfield demanded that the Iraq military be disbanded? might it no longer have been greater useful to maintain them in provider? 3. have you ever asked the mamma and papa of #2,582 on your stat sheet approximately how they experience? you're lacking the full factor of the communicate via focusing on "deaths", and exhibiting us that it is not in all probability that undesirable. the factor is, we are caught, merely like Vietnam and Korea. while are the troops coming living house? We nevertheless shop 30,000 plus (i think of, be at liberty to appropriate me if i'm incorrect) in South Korea. yet our troops in Korea are not loss of existence. Iraq troops are. And, the democrats ask, WHY? It has no longer something to do with loss of existence expenses, yet why we are over there, what's the challenge?
2016-10-04 11:42:34 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Isn't the surge working because 400,000 Iraqi civilians are dead in 5 years, and 2.2 million have left for Syria, Jordan and other safer (who thought we'd ever say that?) locales? Also, aren't the 8 foot concrete walls we placed between shia/sunni neighborhoods most deserving of credit, and if so, is that progress? We've managed to separate them, get them killed, or cause them to flee, not unify them.
2007-10-24 13:15:52 · answer #5 · answered by Stag 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually it might be those warmongering folk who started the fire so that we can pay less attention to the fact the war in Iraq is not working at all.
2007-10-24 05:59:15 · answer #6 · answered by SS 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Was it the liberals or was it the conservatives. After all have not the conservatives ranted and raved about how bias the liberal media is when reporting on Iraq?? What better way to take get the liberal medias attention away from the war then to set fire in California.
2007-10-23 23:34:16 · answer #7 · answered by wondermom 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Boy your first 3 answers are basically useless. But the question is really quite good. This could very well be a planned liberal distraction. They have been known to do very radical things such as ramming US Naval ships, throwing fake blood on celebrities like Ted Nugent, and living in trees. But those are the mild radical liberals. Those that oppose the war in Iraq are extreme radicals, similar to the terrorists in Iraq. They don't mind how much damage is cause or who is killed as long as their message is recognized by the media.
Sick thought, but these are sick people. I think you could be right in your conclusion though.
2007-10-23 23:25:29 · answer #8 · answered by Michael H 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I don't think that they started the fires however I couldn't help but notice that incredible left-wing moonbat Barbara Boxer found a way to blame it on the President so I guess that's close enough.
2007-10-23 23:48:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Maybe Arnold set the fires to draw attention to his state away from the war.
2007-10-24 01:09:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋