Why would he---to protect us all from Al Queda, of course. Your thoughts?
2007-12-27 14:35:35 · 33 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
RE: not enough time. It only took 3 weeks to invade Iraq. Bada bing, bada boom.
I'll bet he's thinking about it!
2007-12-27 15:00:04 · update #1
RE: Taz me Bro---I miss The Constitution. I miss honesty. I miss a President putting us, the American people first. I miss someone who decided to be President because he was inspired by great leaders. Instead we have this "aw shucks" twit who did it because he wanted to be "just like daddy".
I miss having people take oaths that they would protect and defend the Constitution and mean it.
Now, instead of Saddam torturing his people, with have Bush torturing Saddam's people.
2007-12-27 15:06:03 · update #2
That last sentence should say, "Now instead of Saddam torturing his people we have Bush torturing Saddam's people."
2007-12-27 15:07:59 · update #3
yeah okay liberal. It would be a good idea to keep the NUKES from terrorists, I would imagine... Invade... okay we will use your definition since it's all you parrots can remember from the smear sites. INVADE, ummm I just can't in good conscience use that term, as it is incorrect. I guess you miss your bud Saddam and his rape gangs? Perhaps you miss the torture and mass murders of Saddam's regime. Perhaps you really don't know anything except what the liberal media feeds you. Perhaps I will just ignore the likes of ignorance such as this.
I challenge anyone to give HONEST examples of just how the patriot act has caused you/them, to lose any of your constitutional rights.
2007-12-27 14:43:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
In all honesty, after reading far far too much for my own good on this subject, one could and probably should have made a much stronger case for interdiction into Wahiristan (part of Pakistan) after 9/11. It is (after all) where Mr. Bin Laden most likely IS and far be it from anyone opposed to the Iraq war to say "we told you so" but that's coming next, because it is _SO_ richly deserved.
Make no mistake, Iraq was a total distraction destabilizing adding to the comfort of our good friends regarding their desire to seemingly destabilize every non-friendly regime in the periphery of Israel rather than addressing actual interests of the the United States in the Afghan/Pakistan region was possibly the largest military blunder this side of the Alamo.
Time will tell, sooner or later, time will tell.
2007-12-27 15:30:18 · answer #2 · answered by Mark T 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush is sufficient fool to invade different worldwide places for accomplishing out US advantages. yet US politicians can no longer guard another issues for his or her u . s . a . and different worldwide places now. i think of, they're surveying the worldwide reactions against their aggressive coverage. additionally, i do no longer think of the worldwide can guard new invading to a minimum of one the oil manufacturers. although if US desires to have finished administration over oil and gas, yet that may not a reliable time now.
2016-10-09 06:54:22 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I highly doubt it.
But wasn't Obama the one who said a few months ago that it would have been the right choice to invade Pakistan? If an invasion of Pakistan is what you desire, elect him president. I'm sure he would be just as gung-ho about it as Bush was in 2003 about Iraq.
2007-12-27 14:48:19 · answer #4 · answered by Emma 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is no way he would invade Pakistan with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would also be very costly and be a good reason for the world to think we hate the Middle East
2007-12-27 14:39:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
If I were a resident of Pakistan, I would be on Travelocity looking very hard at the best tickets out of that damn country, that's all I have to say.
2007-12-27 16:54:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The war in Iraq is already costing America too much money, so I doubt that he'll want to invade Pakistan. Unless they move the Iraqi troops there..
2007-12-27 14:38:44 · answer #7 · answered by Lopez7.vii 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, insanity is unpredictable so we must not rule this possibility out after all Bush and Bhutto were both from Yale U.
2007-12-27 17:16:35 · answer #8 · answered by CAPTAIN BEAR 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, since Prez. Numb Nuts has pretty much been able to wipe his butt with the U.S. Constitution and do anything he damn well pleases, if he wants to invade Pakistan, well then why not?
Whose gonna stop him...? Congress? Yeah, they've pretty much proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are all a bunch of pu55ies.
2007-12-27 14:40:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
What is it because Bhutto is dead? that the people need a new leader? then why do say Bush?hmm..
Violence makes everything worse, look at the riots currently happening at Pakistan after her assassination!
The world is getting crazy!
2007-12-27 14:40:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋