I see this all of the time on here. Do these fools not understand the serious repercussion's of just pulling out? Are they THAT blind that they cant see pulling out would make it a terrorist haven that would put the whole world in danger? And i dont want to hear about a time table either,..how the hell can you have a time table for a war?
It's one thing to hate the idea of being there, or to even hate Bush for being there, but the fact is we are there .., and to think simply pulling out would end all of our problems is sheer ignorance , when in fact it would danger ALL of us.
2006-07-26 14:49:19 · 15 answers · asked by itsallover 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Ok, *IRAQ*...Scuse the shitz out of me ..
2006-07-26 15:03:45 · update #1
"staying the course" has been pretty disastrous so far.
1) turn over all projects currently overseen by Haliburton and KBR to Iraqi firms, using Iraqi labor, with financial backing from the US.
2) face it....there IS a civil war going on between the religious sects in Iraq. The presence of US troops does not help the situation. Either get serious about training Iraqi forces to police their own country, or let the UN do it. After that, the Iraqis will have to decide the future of their own country without our "help". If a pro-Iranian theocracy is established, too fu**king bad. That's what happens when you invade a country based on lies and cherry picked intellegence.
3)prove to the middle east (and the rest of the world) that the US will not keep permanent forces in Iraq. A good start would be to destroy the permanent bases that are currently being built inside Iraq. It might help restore a tiny bit of the US credibility in the region.
4) Since the invasion, Iraq has become a terrorist haven. It's already happened. Pulling out troops, or keeping them there won't change that one bit.
5) If Chimpy MUST "stay the course", he could at least not cut their benifits, give them the equipment they need to do their jobs, and end the stupid "stop loss" program.
2006-07-26 15:04:33 · answer #1 · answered by BarronVonUnderbeiht 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The USA will never get control of Iraq nor did the British in the 20th century. It is a repetition of history. Saddam Hussein has been an ally of the USA in the war against Iran (1980s). Saddam Hussein has won a UN prize for the advancement of the women's status. He was a lesser evil. What will succede him and the present occupation will be worse than ever. It was not a good idea to fight this war in the first place. The question is how could the USA get out of it with the lesser consequences?
2006-07-26 22:05:55 · answer #2 · answered by Joseph Binette 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They said the same sh*t during Vietnam and somehow the world didn't stop - even though the entire region turned communist. You shouldn't engage in battles where a victory isn't possible. We aren't fighting a war anymore its a civil war and we don't belong in another region's civil war - even if we created it.
The world will not end if Iraq splinters under civil war, and we will not be in any more danger from terroists than we already are. There comes a time when you must cut your losses and bow out. We came to get rid of Sadam and we have succeeded, its time to bring the boys home.
2006-07-26 22:03:55 · answer #3 · answered by coolasice114 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They don't have any ideas and all they know how to do is complain about anything and everything that Bush does. Take a look at Israel. Over 80% of the people in Israel are behind their government and they are kicking Hezbollah butt without all the whining about the terrorists rights, etc. If the Liberals could fight this war with us it would help, but they don't have what it takes to win a war.
2006-07-26 22:06:43 · answer #4 · answered by angelicsanto 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no the Liberals do not think we should simply pull out of Irac we don't know where irac is? however we are stuck in Iraq because of Bush, and we don't belong there. we should have been going after Bin Laden, also because of Iraq we do not have the resource to stop the fighting in Lebanon which very well maybe the begging of the world war III
2006-07-26 22:00:21 · answer #5 · answered by MYRAJEAN 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think most do, I know I don't..
I am in favor of a timetable though, I'd like to see them tell Iraq we will be out by July of next year.. Maybe it would speed up the process of getting their military and government ready. If they're not ready by then we can always just push back the date.. Never hurts to try though..
2006-07-26 21:55:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It already is a terrorist haven and has been so since we took out Saddam. We would be much safer if we would finally catch bin laden. Too bad we are too busy in Iraq to go after the real enemy.
2006-07-26 21:54:26 · answer #7 · answered by beren 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think less liberals think this than you think, but do conservatives actually think Iraq was the best choice for a next step in the war on terrorism.
2006-07-26 21:54:15 · answer #8 · answered by JoeThatUKnow 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Where's Irac?
In terms of IraQ, I would hope there is a tentative timetable. Of course, you cannot always promise to stick to it, but it is a quagmire. And is becoming quite reminscent of Vietnam. But, let me guess: I'm blind?
2006-07-26 21:54:29 · answer #9 · answered by Melissa 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
uh... Bush said the mission was accomplished...
Rummy said they have like 250,000 trained and ready troops...
and I'm sure we are giving them weapons and military support...
so... it sounds like they are probably the strongest military force in the middle east... with the exception of Israel...
and yet they can't take care of a few insurgents?
2006-07-26 21:55:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋