Peter Rodman, the assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, in a separate session with reporters, said that despite progress this summer in reviving the Iraqi economy, raising electricity production and increasing the number of trained Iraqi troops, security conditions have deteriorated.
2006-09-01 09:39:19 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
When thier done doing what? Dying?
2006-09-01 09:42:10 · update #1
Just about the twelfth of never. He has no such plan, they are making to much money on the war why would they want to leave.
2006-09-01 09:42:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No such thing as a timetable in a war.
US during WWII: Well we are almost close to Berlin but we have a TIMETABLE to follow and, OOHH WWWEELLL, we just have to pullout and leave tomorrow because the public are TOO worried about HUMAN CASUALTIES.
To answer your question, HELL NO! Wars like this have to take many years. Take to the soldiers on the ground for a change then listening to the 89% inaccurate media.
update:
The reason why we are still there is to prevent the development of a southern province of Iran or a puppet government, or a huge Islamic Fascist terrorist factory, putting more American lives in danger and more reasons to go right back in Iraq, more dangerous then ever because punk a** world(left wing, terrorist appeasers, peace at all f-ing costs fanatics) wants us out.
Does that answer your question on the reason why we are still there or what are we fighting for? The survival of free world
2006-09-01 16:50:05 · answer #2 · answered by Lone solider 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
When we've achieved our goals of helping the Iraqis build a stable government with a strong military that can defend itself against the insurgents.
Any sooner than that would be stupid. Whether you supported the decision to go to war or not you should accept the fact that we are there, like it or not and to leave before the job is finished would be the worst thing we could do.
2006-09-01 17:40:56 · answer #3 · answered by Tower of T 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We aren't going to leave Iraq until we can instigate or fabricate some kind of attack from iran or Iranian funded terrorist organizations. That's the reason we are still in Iraq, Patiently awaiting the next Staged terror attack so we can push our troops from iraq and afghanistan into iran. Look at Afghanistan and iraq on a map - look what country is in between the two.
2006-09-01 16:46:37 · answer #4 · answered by thehotdogbun 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
How can any sensible person expect a timetable for doing anything in a war ? In order to be able to say exactly what you are going to do, you would have to know exactly what the enemy is planning and is able to do.
Never in the history of the world have the leaders of the opposite sides in a war shared information with each other, therefore, how can anyone say how or when a war will end ?
To abandon Iraq, and let one of the mullahs become the next Saddam would mean that it was all for nothing.
2006-09-01 16:54:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Before I see a timetable to withdraw from Iraq, I'd like to see a timetable to withdraw from Germany, from Japan, from South Korea, from every other nation. You are obviously not properly informed. Try talking to a soldier, someone who is actually on the ground getting the job done in Iraq.
And about the death rate of troops: It's statistically more safe to be a marine in Iraq than driving a car in a major city. Also, Baghdad's crimerate is less than that of 5 american cities, including Philie, Washington DC, and Detroit. You can't use this.
2006-09-01 16:49:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Bush has already gone on record saying that we will be in Iraq through the end of his Presidency. Whether some flip flopping will go on to get some traction for the Republicans in the up coming mid term election has yet to be seen.
2006-09-01 16:46:48 · answer #7 · answered by cuervo r 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They will not give a timetable. They have already said they are against coming up with a timetable, and in addition Bush has already said that we will not withdraw from Iraq during his presidency.
So whoever's next gets stuck with it. I would think this means that only another neocon like Bush would be likely to run as a Republican, because who would want to come home to a big new white house full of so much blood?
looks like we'll be changing horses in midstream whether we like it or not...
2006-09-01 16:43:38 · answer #8 · answered by Aleksandr 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You are asking for a quantitative solution to a qualitative problem. The problem is not about numbers, it is about conditions - in this case security conditions.
If we were in a country for humanitarian efforts, would you demand we leave under a definite timetable as well - regardless of the conditions of those we are trying to help???
2006-09-01 23:02:09 · answer #9 · answered by Christopher B 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How can you give a timetable for withdrawal when you don't know what is going to happen?
Could you have prepared a timetable for when WWII would have been over?
If someone does prepare a timetable won't the terrorists just lay back until the US troops are gone and then attack?
2006-09-01 16:42:31 · answer #10 · answered by Sean 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Not before 2009, didn't Bush say the other day we would not leave Iraq while he's President?? How many more lives and billions of dollars will be spent by then??
2006-09-01 16:42:51 · answer #11 · answered by carpediem 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋