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

It seems like a real war to me, although the enemy is radical Islamists or Islamo-fascists, not terrorists. Did I imagine the 9/11 attacks? Thanks.

2007-12-15 08:34:57 · 17 answers · asked by Shane 7 in Politics & Government Politics

We are killing a lot of al qaeda in Iraq, although I disagreed with the invasion. Zombie, you are blocked, I read a lot and watch hours of news shows every day. Don't insult the questioner, dude. Just answer the question! No one has convinced me that there is a "phony war on terror."

2007-12-15 08:50:25 · update #1

17 answers

That's a not-so-clever tactic the left is using to try and minimize the perceived threat. Why? Because they know the American people correctly do not trust the Democrats with national security issues. Therefore, they want to create the illusion that there is no security issue. The problem with this strategy is that it gives Bush credit for keeping us safe. Paradoxical.

2007-12-15 09:05:23 · answer #1 · answered by Bob 4 · 2 0

Obama is stepping it up by using moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. The conflict on terror is extremely lots alive and kicking. THank god it extremely is or there would have been a team extra assaults on American and English Soil. there became into no phony conflict. Obama and Bush are actually not Warmongers. they are in simple terms attempting to maintain you risk-free is all. attempt and loosen up and enable clever people do their element.

2016-10-11 08:50:12 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

But Bush is not fighting the Islamo-fascists (IF's) or terrorists. He's fighting IRAQI insurgents (95% of whom are not terrorist related according to the military.)

A real war on terror would secure the borders, stabilize Afghanistan and confront the Saudis on their monetary support of terrorists and IF's.

2007-12-15 08:40:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

I think they mean it became phony when, you shunned hunting Osama in the mountains of Afghanistan and with little or no credible evidence you invaded Iraq.Your intelligence service has absolutely no credibility worldewide after Colin Powell was sent up the creek with false intelligence, from a source the German authorites told the CIA was suspect.
You planned the invasion for a rag tag Iraqi army, knowing that sanctions had destroyed the army, but somehow there was meant to be a massive WMD program. It is also not a war in the traditonal sense either, it's more of a buzz word. .

2007-12-15 08:48:47 · answer #4 · answered by Bear F 3 · 1 3

It would be great if the American military effort was focused on capturing osama bin laden, dismantling Al-Qaida or securing the borders, however fact is we are over in Iraq. Iraq never once threatened or attacked the USA so how is Iraq fighting a war on terror?

2007-12-15 08:41:02 · answer #5 · answered by smedrik 7 · 2 2

They and I mean the Iraq invasion has NOTHING to do with fighting the terrorists that attacked on 9/11.

What did Limbaugh mean when he called every soldier that disagrees with Bush a "phony soldier"?

2007-12-15 08:39:54 · answer #6 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 4 3

They are referring to using terrorism as a reason to attack Iraq.

2007-12-15 08:52:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Why do you automatically assume "libs" are the ones who talk about Bush's "phony war on terror'??
Most intelligent people are up-in-arms about it; that's why Bush's popularity ratings are only 24% (at best) and why the Democratic-led Congress that promised to end this vile 'war' has popularity ratings at about 11%.

Bush lied to Congress, hoodwinked the American public, and conned our courageous U.S. troops into believing there was honorable purpose in unconstituionally, illegally, unjustifiably and immorally invading a sovereign nation that in no way threatened, provoked or attacked the U.S.A.

The Bush family had a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein ever since the days of Desert Storm when George H.W. Bush was criticized, ridiculed and humiliated for not 'finishing the job' and ousting Hussein at that time. That's why Goerge W. Bush was selected to be President.

Add to that the concept that Dick Cheney coveted all that OIL. His attitude was, "What's OUR oil doing underneath THEIR sand??" And he was selected as V-P to dictate to George W. Bush exactly what to do.

Add to that the fact that the giant U.S. military-industrial complex {which Eisenhower warned us about} needed a new 'war' to boost its sagging profits from too many years of peace.

So, Bush preyed on grief-stricken Americans after 9-11-01, lied to Congress, hoodwinked the citizenry into believing there were 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq, and conned our courageous U.S. soldiers into thinking we had honorable purpose in invading Iraq.

Add to that the fact that two new government contractors BOTH had direct ties to the Bush-Cheney White House; George H.W. Bush is a principle in the Carlyle Group, who included among its original investors a family by the name of binLaden that contributed $2.5 million; and Cheney got a gargantuant bonus when he left Halliburton to become America's Vice-President. Can anyone with any brains not see that this can't all be "coincidence"???

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their war-mongering friends deserve a specail oil-soaked, blood-splattered corner of Hell where they can rot eternally, along with:

* 535 members of the most contemptible, incompetent, evil, cowardly, corrupt, slothful Repbulican-led Congress in U.S. history that stood by and allowed Bush to run rip shod over our Constitution
-AND-
* 535 members of the most contemptible, incompetent, evil, cowardly, corrupt, slothful Democratic-led Congress in U.S. history that promised to end this vile 'war' if elected, and - to date - have done absolutely nothing to keep that promise.

MAY GOD DAMN THEM ALL!! -RKO- 12/15/-07

2007-12-15 08:51:16 · answer #8 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 0 2

I've never heard liberals use the term "phony war on terror". Rush Limbaugh called liberal veterans and military "phony soldiers" I think you've mistakenly conflated "war on terror" with Rush's remarks.

Democrats do say that you can't have a war on a tactic such as terror, and perhaps that's where the confusion comes from. They would fight terrorists with law enforcement and intelligence techniques. They wouldn't use the military or occupy a country which had not attacked us as a first resort.

2007-12-15 08:39:19 · answer #9 · answered by ? 5 · 4 4

you mean the lib ostriches that have heads buried in their as*s...yes it is a real war (ww4) and it will last 40 to 50 years.the islamofacists want to destroy the USA and spread islam worldwide.we are in for some scary times.

2007-12-15 09:53:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers