2007-11-02 14:05:13 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
They have run out of bullets and are waiting on FedEx to deliver.
2007-11-02 14:19:49 · answer #1 · answered by ? 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋
NATO is in charge in Afghanistan. Iraq is not lost, as much as you wish it were. The surge worked, and things are getting better in Iraq all the time. People are shopping in street markets in Baghdad, kids are riding their bikes in the streets of Fallujah.
Don't even attack Bush's domestic agenda: the economy is strong and growing; the GDP is rising every quarter; the big hairy horrible deficit is under 2% of the GDP (which by any reasonable account is excellent); there have been 48 straight months of job creation, the longest streak of that type ever; the tax cuts have benefitted and expanded the middle class (not just the rich), which is demonstrated by the rising GDP and the shrinking deficit and the job growth.
You are a Bush hater. You get your news from Bush haters in the MSM. You uncritically accept those news sources that you WANT to believe, i.e. Bush haters.
2007-11-02 14:26:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
he's not and neither is the US, most of our allies (NATO forces) are the only one losing districts. The US and the Afgans havent lost any districts yet. It due to their leaders send them there and then tell them not to get hurt. But I wouldnt blame that on bush blame it on european passiveness.
2007-11-02 18:03:19 · answer #3 · answered by firetdriver_99 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because he diverted resources from Afghanistan to Iraq, choosing to let terrorism flourish in a new Taliban haven, while making Halliburton, Blackwater, ExxonMobil, Standard Oil, and the rest of his republican cronies rich beyond belief, at the expense of American lives, America's security, and the US Constitution.
2007-11-02 14:12:11 · answer #4 · answered by theHoundDawg 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It may be a NATO operation, but it is controlled and coordinated by the US. Please get your facts right people. I'm not saying NATO doesn't deserve criticism, it does, but this is our baby.
This isn't a hard concept. We never properly rebuilt Afghanistan after the war there. Farmers had to grow poppy to survive, so cheap opium (read:heroin) is flooding the world. the Taliban used to be ultra anti drug (executing drug growers) but now they use those farmers for money to run their insurgency. And whether or not they can hold a province, the fact that there still is a Taliban after 5 years of war with us is disturbing to me.
2007-11-02 14:20:34 · answer #5 · answered by Chance20_m 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Some people grasp at any straw trying to denigrate G Bush. Hope you'll read the other posts that tell the real facts about your "fallen district."
2007-11-02 14:20:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
You provide no link for this, and NATO forces seem to be ADVANCING against the Taliban. The Taliban might be making some gains somewhere, but against NATO weaponry the Taliban really doesn't stand a chance.
2007-11-02 14:09:47 · answer #7 · answered by Paul Hxyz 7 · 7⤊ 3⤋
Back slid'n all the way up the hill G Bush?
"History teaches us that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake," Bush said. "Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is, will we listen?"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071101/ap_o...
If I am not mistaken, Bin Laden is not a threat to the US. So why on earth would G Bush use him like this?
Just goes to show how much this man is a lier!
Somebody prove me wrong please, come on cons rep, answer the question...
Did he just not lie to the world? To his country? To his fellow man?
Yes or No?
If War Denial is dangerous, then Bin Laden must be a threat! It would be nice if this so called man made up his mind for the better of our troops!
Sorry Bas;lkj;
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApTO.2oRecZ_GY0sB6b3LATQ7BR.;_ylv=3?qid=20071101150937AAd7Fuc
I posted a question on yahoo Q/A form and figured this would be some great ammo vs G Bush.
Sending it to you if you want to use it, feel free.
2007-11-02 14:11:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Well, giving the enemy sanctuary in Pakistan and pulling most of the support originally marked for Afghanistan so he could invade a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. . . .
Those are a couple of the tings that the "Decider" decided.
2007-11-02 14:11:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
We didnt lose in Iraq to lose in Afghanistan..on contrary we are winning in Iraq
2007-11-03 12:13:08 · answer #10 · answered by Peiper 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Learn who is control of the NATO forces in Iraq.
You people never cease to amaze me.
2007-11-02 14:12:41 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋