I grew up in Wisconsin in the country and in our backyard we had a birdfeeder. And the problem we had was the squirrels would keep coming and eating the feed more than the birds. So me and my Dad would shoot the squirrels hoping that would fix the problem. Well, for every 5 squirrels we killed, 5 new ones would come. This went on and on and on. So, how do we get rid of the squirrels? Get rid of the birdfeeder.
American troops are the birdfeeder, we need to leave and see what happens. When? I say do like the Democrats say and have a timeline with benchmarks. Step by step, timeline by timeline. Goal oriented.
2006-08-31 05:45:29
·
answer #1
·
answered by anitahooker_transvestite 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Cycle out over the next year, as each current deployment term ends.
What we're doing over there is nothing more than nation-building, helping Iraq establish a new government, attempting to bring democracy to a country that obviously isn't ready for it. But even if those might be valid goals (and that too is debatable), the methods we're using are hideously inefficient, and apparently ineffective.
Let's look at it from a cost-benefit perspective. How much money (tens of millions) and how many lives (dozens) did it cost for the US to invade Iraq and topple Saddam's government . How much money (tens of billions) and how many lives (thousands) has it cost for the US to remain in Iraq and try to force them to set up a new government. Which, by the way, is nowhere close to being ready to take over their country.
What we should have done is pull out after "Mission Accomplished" and allow Iraq to set up whatever government it wanted. If we didn't like the results, we go in, topple it, and tell them to try again. We could have done that 10 times and still spent only 1% of the money and lost 1% of the lives that we have so far under the current plan.
We need to start acting intelligently, based on the current situation. We can't remake the past. So, we either look forward or we get left behind.
2006-08-31 12:37:47
·
answer #2
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
You base this comment on what facts: "What I don't hear him talk about is that with two forces, US military and Iraqis we are seriously struggling against insurgents who are relentless. " You must be watching CNN or AL Jazeera. There is no time line, there can't be a time line! We either win, or we loose. If we can't win we stay and fight, because if we leave they will follow us home and we will be in your front yard. Do you not listen to the terrorist speak about how they want to eliminate US and Isreali people?
2006-08-31 12:41:47
·
answer #3
·
answered by Chief 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Bush says we won't leave Iraq until the "job gets done". What he fails to say is what "the job' IS. Most gullible Americans think that means establishing Iraq as a democracy. Wrong!
Cheney will not allow Bush to withdraw any U.S. troops until there is a rock-solid, iron-clad arrangement in place to seize all of Iraq's OIL, in full cooperation with the new Iraqi government (which he helped install).
OIL is the only reason we're in Iraq. Bush had a personal vendetta against Hussein and Cheney wanted all that OIL so he and his Exxon-Mobil buddies could get richer and richer and richer. If we really want to spread democracy around the world, why aren't we illegally invading other dictatorships ruled by evil despots? Because they have no OIL!
PREDICTION: We will be "at war" with Iran within a year, or as soon as Bush can figure out a plausible excuse for invading that oil-rich country (he's pretty sure "weapons of mass destruction" won't work again, even on the most gullible "dittohead" Americans).
__________________________________________________
Check out the new blog: BUSHWACKER!
www.blogger.com
http://al-aback.blogspot.com
__________________________________________________
You're right: we need to support our troops. What we don't want to do is support the Bush administration and the sitting U.S. Congress for its complete incompetence, corruption, greed, arrogance and immorality.
Most people realize now that Bush and Cheney took advantage of stoked-up passions over 9-11 to attack Iraq and kill 41,000 Iraqi citizens (not to mention 2,600 U.S. soldiers).
But Bush needed something to keep the military-industrial complex profitable (just as other presidents needed the Cuban Missile Crises, the Korean conflict, the Vietnam War, and Desert Storm). And, of course, we coveted Iraq's OIL.
This ongoing, never-ending skirmish is all about OIL - nothing else. It's not about peace; not about democracy; and certainly not about honor. It's all about OIL. -RKO-
2006-08-31 13:31:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by -RKO- 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
They will not make it work. This has been going on for 8000 years. Did the Bush administration not know that the Sunnis' and Shites don't get along? Never mind. Stupid question, they went after Iraq because they caused 911 remember?
2006-08-31 12:39:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by sassyk 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
Not until the Iraqi military are stronger than they now. It may take another 4 years until this is done.
2006-08-31 12:56:02
·
answer #6
·
answered by Vagabond5879 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
At the turn of the next Presidential election it will be known. If Repulican wins, we will finish the job, no matter the time or cost, i"d estimate 5-6 years. But if democrat wins we will abandon all progress immidiately, for the big poularity contest.
2006-08-31 12:56:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by triple sec 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
occupied troops stay in Iraq till USA people cant tolerate lost in men at Iraq at this stage only USA occupied army will leave Iraq alone
2006-08-31 14:57:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by abu 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
IF bush would have let the military do it's JOB 4 or 5 years ago we wouldn't be having this discussion.
2006-08-31 12:42:40
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Well for me, anytime after Antique Roadshow at 7pm on Monday nights would be good.
2006-08-31 14:32:21
·
answer #10
·
answered by Sgt. VietnamVet 3
·
1⤊
0⤋