English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

none----------iraq, an enemy who we helped arm in the 1980's, had no terrorist attacks until bushs war. now we can't pour money in there fast enough.

2007-12-14 10:00:41 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

17 answers

The ignorance of these bush lovers is overwhelming!

They just don't get it!

They keep mentioning ( specially this guy ''Voice of Liberty''!) Islamic extremist has been attacking US for long time and blah, blah, blah........!, but NOT even one of these obtuse geniuses!! EVER mentions the reason of why being!!

Good god bush lovers, GET THIS: if America leaves these people the focc alone, there wouldn't/shouldn't be any attacks or so called ''terrorism''!!

Are you people competent enough to refer to history book and find out about US plunderous conducts, foreign policies, bullying, stealing OIL, invasion, unjust side taking while Israel does its routine crimes, CIA's ops.,............... in the last 50-60 years?!!

I still doubt you get it!!

While you're at it, also see how US ''just to expand and maintain its interests'', had been supporting any known dictator in recent history, like Shah, Pinochet, Saddam(rings the bell?!!).

2007-12-16 17:16:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

nicely while apart from the roman empire has a conflict of profession ever yielded lasting consequences asserting that they have got been ultimately overthrown. look at vietnam despite the fact that im conscious that wasnt a conflict on terror, the russians in afghanistan, the present iraq and afghanistan campaigns all of them instruct that occupying international places achieves little or no or perhaps much less in the long term. Propoganda is an particularly smart gadget, and regrettably invading forces have a no longer straight forward time convincing community populations of thier "good intentions", although chivalrous they'd be. faith, loss of problem-loose lifestyles needs, loss of mutual understanding, cultural intolarance, very own agendas on the aspects of those in or wishing to benefit some style of skill are all aspects in the recipie of violence and terror. I dont think of there is unquestionably a pliable answer right here there are too many variables. the quantity of funds spent on individual luxuries, defence budgets, oftentimes wasted the checklist is going on is extra beneficial than sufficient to create a worldwide lifestyles-form equalibrium yet regrettably for motives to multiple to checklist and or debate this could never ensue till the worldwide is on a point playing field while it includes tolarance racially, culturally,educationally,economicly there'll consistently be some field of conflict someplace. in short no yet its a physically powerful question despite the fact that the solutions at the instant are not as we talk forward and are longwinded, terrorisim isn't defeated by utilising tanks planes and the starting to be mortality checklist of distant places squaddies.

2016-10-11 07:29:08 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Because even though most of the 9/11 hijackers were citizens of saudi arabia, the bush family are good friends with the saudi royal famil and bush didn't want to invade saudi because then the prince might never hold his hand in public again!

2007-12-14 10:10:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

corporate contracts.

the iraq war has nothing to do with 9/11, the real war on terror or american security - which general petreus stated flatly that he couldn't state would be better for having fought the iraq war.

i've never seen such a blunder that has been so cheerfully endorsed by so many.

the war in iraq is a SQUANDERING of people, money and resources at a time when we can scarcely afford to waste anything.

i'm almost at the point where i believe that bush is an arab plant, designed to destroy the american nation.

well i plan to take it out on the republicans in the next election and the one after that.

my vote must be earned by trust and working for the benefit of the american people.

the republic party has allowed themselves to be reduced to the role of a corporate watchdog - and not even american corporations at that.

this virus needs to be vaccinated out of our political system.

2007-12-14 10:08:25 · answer #4 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 6 3

If you are saying that they had no terror attacks against them then the answer is you are wrong. The Government, prior to our invasion conducted several attacks that you can consider as terrorist attacks against it's own people. For example, The Kurds had weapons of mass destruction (gas) used against their civillian population, we also have had confirmation that Olympic athletes, who didn't do so good, were tortured by Hussain's sons, there are several thousands of more examples I could give, but, you get the point.

2007-12-14 10:07:38 · answer #5 · answered by joseph b 6 · 3 4

Whoa whoa, slow down with all the logic and reason. The people that support the war don't use logic or reason. They prefer catchy slogans that make no sense and it's a huge plus if they rhyme. It doesn't have to make any sense for these idiots to send other people kids to die.

2007-12-14 11:14:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

That whole nation was sham of a country, the 'terrorist' was the government and I seem to know that multiple mass graves were found proving my point not yours.

2007-12-14 10:17:06 · answer #7 · answered by Quetzal 3 · 1 2

Theres oil thar! Bush became a terrorist himself for it!

To quote the voice of "Since we have sent our troops to Iraq, where have the terrorist attacks against the U.S. occurred? - In Iraq" WHY because we took out the one single man who held Alqida off the Iraqi soil. Now we created a breeding ground for them
WAY TO GO!!!!! Stop helping (cause your not)
If we would have put those efforts into Afghanistan, we would have the main person responsible for the majority of attacks against the US. OSAMA

To all the thumbs down: Sorry to see the ignorance of all the Bush toads. Thank heavens our great country will not have to put up with the Dumbya another term.

Answer this dumbya lovers: Why are we still there? Wheres your weapons of mass destruction? Why does the Anti-American Bush wish to cut budgeting for Homeland security to protect our own soil, but ask for money to support his war on another soil. OIL!

2007-12-14 10:03:52 · answer #8 · answered by Grape Stomper 5 · 9 9

Its a mindless, tangled, idiotic approach to military hopelessness. Can't fight a civil war when you are not one of the civilians.

2007-12-14 10:07:13 · answer #9 · answered by edubya 5 · 5 2

It's still all about the oil despite what the cons say. We know it, the world knows it and the Bush/Cheney administration know it.

2007-12-14 10:08:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 7 4

fedest.com, questions and answers