I personnaly do but wat about you? hehe i should rap.
2007-12-23 05:46:20 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Well could of George bush just appealed at the UN for an embargo on Iraq? We did it to SA?
2007-12-23 13:05:40 · update #1
Yes it should have never started in the first place.
2007-12-23 05:49:56 · answer #1 · answered by Union_Dooz 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
There are many times in history where America went in to someplace to do something....and then had to do it all again. Sorry for the vagueness in that statement, but I didn't want it to refer to any one particular case...and for anyone who is a true student of history, they can come up with a few examples all by themselves. For those that aren't...well.......what they say is true.. Those that don't know history are condemned to repeat it.
Sure, the war is costly, but consider all the social liberal programs that have wasted much more money. Say the war on Poverty....6.5 trillion dollars later and after all these years, the situation is about the same. How about the war on drugs ? I still see them available and on the streets. America has had so many "wars" on things we don't like, but what have you seen from the liberal / socialist political front ? alot of dreams, smokes and mirrors, meanwhile the tax payer gets soaked for more money for some Government program that never goes away but does little good.
At least the war on Terror is doing some good. We are freeing people, we are attempting to establish allies in the world. Logically we will have to deal with Terrorism one way or another, unless you think we can put some kind of a dome over America and have 100% control of our borders. It is an ugly reality that some people will go to great lengths to persue killing others. The atomic bomb that we dropped on Japan wasn't exactly a nice thing to do, puting it very mildly, but it brought an end to the war and saved many American lives in the process. So, as history will prove, it is one example where it was the best option between 2 evils.
I'm all for finding a way to resolve conflicts between nations without the use of war, but reality nearly demands it, because no one has found such a way. The only thing we have now days is liberals whining about not going to a war that most aren't even serving in or part of, and all the assurance they have for America is...well.....we don't think that the terrorists will hurt us.
Terrorism has been hitting America for ages and we haven't done much to crush it until recently. Even going back to the 1700's they state sponsored terrorsts were taking prisoners and attacking people based on thier belief that they had a religious right to do so. For those less learned on history...you might know them as the Pirates of the Barbary coast.
Until you get rid of the notion in some of these countries that they do not have the right to force thier conversions onto people, you will always have terrorism, and as long as Terrorism exists, the war inherantly must be fought.
Still a doubter ? what about the destruction of the marine barracks in 1983 beruit ? The first attempt to blow up the towers in 1993 ? There has always been terrorism, its now just globally and accepted as an ideology by certain nations. So the choice is clear. Eliminate or control the ideology, or eliminate the people that act on it.
2007-12-23 06:03:25 · answer #2 · answered by Nightwind 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush isnt fighting a real war... Hes fighting a "PC" war. Its pretty similar to a panty party. If he were fighting a REAL war.. Much of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, and a few other shitty little middle east entities would be a smoldering mass of rubble by now... and many of the elements within our own nation that are actively rooting for the deaths of US soldiers in the middle east would be arrested and tried for sedition.
(reffering to those who actively promote treason....not those who oppose the war opinion wise...and yes.. there IS a difference).
Instead... we are babysitting a few nations, arguing with eachother over what to do and not to do, and bashing our own President for his misteps and incompetance on the issue. (alot of it rightly deserved).
He should have followed the constitution and had congress declare war on his target. Instead, like a true dueschbag... he gave the dems and the liberal media a good reason to play politics and divide us on this war... instead of uniting us.
Which is why we have the current debate we have while trying to fight against a ruthless enemy, driven by religious fanaticism, who wants to kill us.
What a waste of time and money.
2007-12-23 06:29:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Do you stop right now and bring the troops home? That would be a disaster for the entire mid east and the US.
Come on! Be reasonable. Congress overwhelmingly voted yes on the issue back when it was fashionable. Now that it is difficult you want to cut and run and let Iraq and it's people fall back under a dictatorship AND let the terrorists claim that they beat the US military AND bring the dogs who want to fight here to the US.
Not practical. Not reasonable. Not gonna happen.
2007-12-23 06:01:07 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, hes got me terrorized.
I don't recognize my country anymore.
We are divided between crabby people who despise anyone whos luck is down, and rich people...well, OK they never notice anyone at all anyway, and the bloodthirsty, torture them before they bomb us crowd.
We used to care about each other, we used to be polite, give seats to the pregnant, raise a hat to a lady.
We could agree to disagree, without throwing insults about.
Now if you disagree you do not merely have a diffent view, you are called unpatriotic and a traitor or coward.
George Bush has led the war on terror.
On his own people
2007-12-23 05:57:28 · answer #5 · answered by justa 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It may be that it Bush did not go about it in the best way, but terror is real and needs to be fought.
2007-12-23 05:51:54 · answer #6 · answered by ZB 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No, he should get out of the way for someone who can come up with a reasoned strategy to begin the fight the fight.
2007-12-23 05:54:00 · answer #7 · answered by redphish 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes. It should be turned into a "strategy" on terror. Knowledge, protection and prevention are key.
It is not a war and it is silly to just go attacking everything.
2007-12-23 05:52:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
I think he should start being what his enemies accuse him of being.
2007-12-23 05:57:42 · answer #9 · answered by battle-ax 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Mr. Bush alone did not begin this war nor does he have the ability to stop it now....that's for your Congress to decide!
2007-12-23 05:50:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋