Personally, I think that is fallacious Whitehouse rhetoric to support staying...
But for Bush supporters who actually buy that BS- why are ANY of those people commending our commander-in-chief for doing a good job in the War on Terror when we could be attacked?
Does it really make any sense? This quagmire exists due to our president's push for an unnecessary invasion, and the former congress's backing. There were plenty of other cruel dictators, worse than Saddam, especially in Africa...
And now in this Iraq war we are celebrating merely a brief period of decreased troop deaths? Oh boy. What a sad, remorseful state of affairs we must be in...
Commending our president now is analogous to someone beating up a person, and when the court orders the violent offender to pay the hospital bills, he is praised and patted on the back for doing so.
Worse yet, Pres. Bush already stated the war will continue beyond his administration. Seems like he already has admitted he went way in over his head.
2007-12-09 14:00:22 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
How can the surge be working? We have seen ZERO political progress! We need political progress so that they can fend for themselves. That has been the plan for a long time. You can't pretend that isn't true all of a sudden just to make your point.
2007-12-09 14:06:46 · update #1
Uhh...Doc? I clearly stated that the war was started also thanks to the former congress's backing of the president's push for invasion.
Do YOU ever pay attention?
2007-12-09 14:24:33 · update #2
it's the "domino theory" reborn
2007-12-09 14:05:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
These are exxagerated information which the president aims to over exxagerate and spit into the propaganda machine in American to brainwash the public to support another war adventure. If Iran does exert any influence or support in Iraq I highly doubt it will amount to the level of evils America did to Iran in 1953 when CIA overthrew the elected government of Iran and installed the brute Dicatorship of the Shah who ruled ruthlessly with American support and aid, who was also kept in power by a CIA and Mossad created police force, the Savak, which was the world's most torturous police force.
2016-05-22 09:55:43 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There would be less violence because there are 5 million less Iraqis there now a million are dead 4 million are refugees and most of the rest are too weak from lack of water malnutrition plus the peaceful places are run by militia`s who are no better than Saddam
Iraq was no threat to America the whole world outside America knows that
2007-12-09 14:34:57 · answer #3 · answered by keny 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Wow. Do you REALLY pay attention? I don't fear a direct assault nearly as much as an economic one. Let me explain. As much as most hate to admit it, this war is about oil as much as it is about religion. Iran needs the oil. We need the oil. Reagan knew and understood this. He reflagged all of those tankers back during the Iran/Iraq war AND provided them with a U.S. Naval escort. Iran has openly stated that they are ready to step in and "fill the vacuum of leadership when the U.S. leaves." They've been trying to undermine the U.S. efforts and have been exporting terrorism to destabilize the region for at least as long as several months before Iraq's first "free" elections. If we leave prematurely, Iran WILL step in and take over the oil industry. The world economy runs on oil. They will have us over the perverbial barrel.
As for your bemoaning the 3,886 American lives lost in over four years there, may I be so bold as to point out that we lost 6,821 in just 36 days on the island of Iwo Jima? That the Brit.s lost over 200,000 in the first hour of the first battle of the Somme in WW I -- and that battle lasted for months! I have lost friends and know the parents of those lost in Iraq. It does not come lightly. But being realistic, I know what the outcome would be should we leave prematurely. We left without completing the mission in Vietnam and having done so, a little over a million were tortured and lost their lives.
All but three in congress voted in favor of this war. Blaming Bush is pathetically stupid and myopic. But then, so is the idea of pulling out early. What else should we expect from those who never grew up or served? "He lied!!!" and "It's not fair!!!" Do your homework. Use your brain. Be more critical in your thinking.
Yes Steve, I DO pay attention. And you did not clearly state any such thing. Clearly. You should be careful when using that particular word. Use it too often and you might be mistaken for Dick Cheney! Clearly!
2007-12-09 14:17:08 · answer #4 · answered by Doc 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Do you honestly believe what you are typing? I was in the army for seven years and just got out. there is a lot more going on over seas than the left leaning libs want to believe. We are engaging terrorist cells every day and as we continue to fight we're finding these pockets of resistance are becoming smaller and further between. To answer your other question, Yes if we pull out now the war on terror will be much more closer to home. there are already terrorist in the US but not nearly as much as there would be if we were to pull out now. Hear this no matter who takes over the office as commander in chief, they will be exposed to intelligence information that they were not privy to before election. We will be in Iraq for a long time, and like it or not it's for the benefit of America and all of its citizens.
2007-12-09 14:13:17 · answer #5 · answered by Tea Party Patriot 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Yes they would attack, because the libs are showing cowardice in the face of the enemy. The libs do this every time they say this is an illegel war, or, we have lost and must pull out, or, we are losing people in an unjust war. Do you not realize that when a bully sees you show weakness, as the libs are doing, they attack even harder, and with more bravado? If you hate Bush, that is one thing, but if you can't stand up for your own country, you do not deserve to be here.
2007-12-09 14:09:40 · answer #6 · answered by Scrappy52 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
How the hell would they get here?
Dog paddle, then sneak in through the southern border that Bush never bothered to secure in the 6 years since 9/11.
Bwuhahaha
2007-12-09 14:06:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
If they were going to attack us, they would have already. Who can say we are safer by staying and fighting there. Our young men and women are not safe there. I say it is better to fight them over here. This is just another scare tactic of the president administration.
2007-12-09 16:23:30 · answer #8 · answered by cwigg 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
personally i dont think they would i think we need to move and station our troops in th african nation because if i do recall we said right after ww2 that we would not allow another genocide to happen and well THAT IS EXACTLY what is going on over there i mean to say that i support our troops but dont support them being in the middle east well there is my rant for the day :)
2007-12-09 14:07:02 · answer #9 · answered by Valentina♥ 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Politicans are natural liars. It is nothing they can help, it is born in them. If you think the government is telling you the truth about ANYTHING, you might be a redneck!
2007-12-09 14:06:07 · answer #10 · answered by cprucka 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well the Brits are about to leave...if they don't get attacked by iraqi's insurgents.then you know it's complete rubbish...
2007-12-09 14:09:35 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋