Even for someone totally neutral on the war in Iraq, it would be hard to imagine cutting and running. No matter your feelings, if you are involved in an auto accident, you are required to stop and render aid. I consider our involvement in Iraq analogous to an auto accident. Not just assigning blame, but just trying to see how we can help the injured.
2006-08-11 13:56:18 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Not even related at all.
Compare it to a business transaction. You look at the costs and the benefits. What does it cost, in US lives, Iraqi lives, and billions of US dollars (it's not worth counting in smaller units) to stay. Compare that to what the benefits are for the US, short and long term, and what the benefits are for the Iraqis.
The vast majority of the total Iraqi population (counting all sides) doesn't want us there. We have no direct benefits to the US. And we're losing thousands of US soldiers and tens of billions dollars, and resulting in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties.
The downsides of remaining are huge. The upsides non-existent. Iraq clearly isn't ready for democracy, and it's not something that can be imposed by force. It has to come from a strong internal movement, and all evidence shows that's not present.
It's not "cutting and running" to change course when new facts arise. Regardless of the decisions made years ago, this is something that has to be determined based on where we are now. And where we are now is causing much more harm, at a far greater cost, than any good we could possibly do.
2006-08-11 14:10:11 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say up until about a month ago, my stance was to stay in Iraq because we had made a mess of it. I have since changed my opinion.
Why?
For one, because there is a civil war going on atm. The Israeli war has drowned it out. At this point, there is nothing we can do.
Secondly, they have their constitution, their elected officials and a new government. If we stay, it will be just like Vietnam where we are standing around watching the ppl we protect kill each other and not know who the enemy is.
Lastly, I have come to believe that we are only making things worse. The longer we stay there the more that not only to Iraqi civilians hate us more and more but also this gives terrorist more reason to come to Iraq. They are growing by the numbers the longer we stay in Iraq.
Honestly, either way is a gamble. Stay and have more terrorism for 50+ years. Leave and risk another dictatorship moving in.
2006-08-13 19:00:18 · answer #2 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since we caused the injury then we should pay the price, unfortunately we followed a failed and corrupt administration into a quagmire. We are going to pay as long as we are there. Iraq is in a civil war now and we are not only the cause of it but we are in the middle of it. Pulling out now will make little difference in the outcome. They will have a civil war if we stay 100 years. They should have the right to form any kind of government that they wish not a puppet government set up by the U.S. So is it cutting and running or a strategic pull back. I report the facts and you decide.
2006-08-11 21:03:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
uh... mission was accomplished years ago.. Bush said it...
Rummy said there are hundreds of thousands members of security forces, both police and military, that are highly trained and ready to go
so... how are they still injured? It sounds like they have the strongest army in the middle east?
2006-08-11 21:00:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pitbulls are for the gutless
2006-08-16 14:00:57 · answer #5 · answered by charles 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Should change symbol from donkey to ostrich!
2006-08-11 20:59:23 · answer #6 · answered by Bawney 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋