Which would you have choosen?
One well placed bomb would have ended Saddam's reign, saving lives and wouldn't need to rebuild their country after destroying it, creating a huge debt.
Intel is all you need to fight a war and then special forces to eliminate the threat, same goes for Al Qaeda.
2007-11-18 01:53:44 · 19 answers · asked by Edge Caliber 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
jay f I visit and do business in the US all the time, don't shoot the messenger.
2007-11-18 02:07:22 · update #1
I'd have built a fence.
2007-11-18 02:46:55 · answer #1 · answered by benni 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I was against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning and felt since 9/12/2001 that we needed to secure our borders with new technologies and increased numbers of border patrol agents. Use of actual military personnel along the border should be limited and temporary.
2007-11-18 02:39:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
At the border with whom? Kuwait? Kuwait was happy US invaded. Iraq? Why would they ask the Iraq customs when they represent the authority that US wanted to wipe out? National laws are respected until it is worthy to be respected. Alway, and that includes all countries, not only US. Once a country dicide to attack another one, the attacking country can choose to obey/disregard any national law. Your question sounds silly, and I doubt you are this naive.
2016-05-24 02:03:44 · answer #3 · answered by jennette 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i wouldnt be in favor of either of those because i feel that the wall that was built and the soldiers that are there, are REALY there because mexico and america may be going through some kind of war pretty soon. i have heard some chatter about it and a few hinting factors on the news so i think its a reasonable theory of whats realy happening. so both situations would be pretty much the same thing in my opinion.
2007-11-20 13:21:27 · answer #4 · answered by curvy_chick000 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither.
The immigration "crisis" is contrived by Washington to misdirect our attention of...Washington and what is going on there.
The War on Iraq was always and remains utterly unnecessary. Our military is being decimated by special interest and gross incompetence yet, it serves as if it had qualified, competent leadership.
Our military is untainted by the tragedy of Iraq; they serve honorably, as promised. It is what passes for civilian "leadership" that subjects our military and the hapless peoples of Iraq to this colossal political blunder.
2007-11-18 03:02:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No contest. Place army around Iraq's borders to secure them, and keep anyone else out.
But that would have taken at least someone with average intelligence to do that. Sadly he doesn't even possess average intelligence.
Wotan
2007-11-18 01:57:32 · answer #6 · answered by Alberich 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
we need to fight the war over there, but it is crucial that we secure our borders. if mexicans can sneak in, how long before terrorists start using those routes into texas? it's all part of the same fight.
2007-11-18 03:34:04 · answer #7 · answered by SmileItsNotThatSerious 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
On the borders, of course. But few politicians are interested in border security, because they need illegal immigrants to raise their kids and clean their mansions.
2007-11-18 01:59:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Can I have a third choice? Place soldiers on the neo cons like Wolfowitz & Baker and secure ourselves from them.
Sorry, I am feeling jaded and cynical today.
2007-11-18 02:19:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Invade Iraq? Why? We supported Saddam to get him INTO power. Doesn't anyone remember?
Just as we armed Afganistan when they were fighting Russia.
What fine messes we get into!!!
2007-11-18 02:08:20 · answer #10 · answered by PATRICIA MS 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
secure the borders, although I don't think that should be a function of the "regular" military
2007-11-18 01:58:24 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋