- NEW!
by FLYxNIGHT on March 25th, 2007
There is no war against terrorists. There is an occupation of Iraq, which the people are understandably fighting (wouldn't you fight if the US were occupied?), and an occupation of Afghanistan, which is at this point more a front in the War on Drugs than anything else.
The Democratic Party is simply speaking their mind, now that they can possibly be heard where it matters.
Rigid, righteous, reactionary probably doesn't describe you. Do you know any rigid righteous reactionary who is admirable? Who?
by RosieGHM Jetpacker on December 30th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Mercenaries are venal. They will work for whatever side pays them to do so. Do you want a mercenary for your country's leader though?
by RosieGHM Jetpacker on December 16th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Politics is the art of controlling people, true or false? Elaborate.
by Random on December 22nd, 2011
| 1 person likes this
When a government is complicit in the suppression/diminution of the rights of its citizens what is their recourse? Moving?
by RosieGHM Jetpacker on November 19th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Is totalitarianism the normal human state?
by Scumop on December 26th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Is the Democratic Party trying to undermine the war against terrorists solely for political gain?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Tell that to the children of the people in the towers. You will make them cry. No war on terror? Bury your head in the sand a bit further, maybe it will go away.
by Cowboy-Matter of Fact on March 25th, 2007
Oh, piss on that. I worked in the Trade Center for years. I lost friends there. And as for this war on terror, it's been going on forever. My father was a counterterrorism specialist going back to the early 70's. It isn't me with the buried head - I've been hearing about this crap literally my whole life. It's just that your head is recently unburied, and you think you've found something new. You cannot wage war against an unidentified enemy with unknown whereabouts. It's a stupid concept, doomed to fail.
by FLYxNIGHT on March 25th, 2007
What about the children of the one million killed in Iraq? Or the families of the two hundred thousand or so children killed in Iraq?
by Halskiisaklink on October 5th, 2007
Thank God we got there before Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti killed more!!!
by Cowboy-Matter of Fact on October 5th, 2007
Oh yes. Better that you killed them than Saddam Hussein. They might join his undead armies. :P
by Halskiisaklink on October 5th, 2007
God Bless America!
by Cowboy-Matter of Fact on October 5th, 2007
No-one else will. :P
by Halskiisaklink on October 5th, 2007
Cowboy-Matter, in your claims you fail to recognize some pretty simple truths.
1. Saddam Hussein was place in power by the US, and his government was funded by the US, we also funded his war against Iran (recall the famous picture of Dick Chaney shaking hands with him when he served as secretary of defense)
More Americans have been killed in fighting than died during the 9/11 attacks. so with your logic, you would burn down the house to kill the rat inside?
Prior to the 9/11 attacks, then President Bush asked congress on 3 separate occasions to authorize military force in Iraq for the following reasons:
Violation of the No Fly Zone
claimed uncooperative with UN inspectors (specifically, they wanted to search his actual place of residence, claiming he was hiding a things in his home) what Nut would hide a nuclear bomb, or poison gas in his on home?
Expelling of some members of the UN inspection team for violation of Iraqi laws (specifically the use of alcohol)
This whole thing has been a shame from the beginning, and I am speaking as a former combat vet, Don't believe all of the propaganda that the Bush administration put out to justify the wars.
by olan black on December 31st, 2009