2006-09-03 14:29:57 · 25 answers · asked by rache0116 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Just about the twelfth of never. Bush is making money off of this war, why would he want to bring anybody home to their family's, none of his family is over there you can count on it.
2006-09-03 14:33:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
As much as I hate to say it, we are obligated to be there now. Since we've obliterated their government, societal structure and sense of security, we have a duty to stay there (whether we like it or not) until things are sorted one way or another.
This is why studying world history is such a good thing--you can really learn from the mistakes of the past. After World War I, the victorious nations blamed Germany, gave them the war debt, made them demilitarize, and told them to form a democracy (among many other things). This was 100% deadly since the Alliance only gave them the blue-prints for democracy but offered no aid...they all went back home to rebuild. So Germany was stuck with a hurt ego, a huge debt (horrible inflation), no defense, and a daunting task to fulfill. Sure they created a democracy, but look at how it was exploited! Not too much later Hitler was elected and we were plunged into World War II. You take a bruised society and one person who sees it as their chance to get power, and there can be major problems.
In short: we don't want to see this happen in Iraq, because there is the possibility that without our help to set up their new society, we'll find ourselves in the same place years down the road. I'm with the majority and believe that we shouldn't be there in the first place; but what's done is done, and we really need to make sure we're going to be smart about our course of action.
2006-09-03 23:23:49 · answer #2 · answered by exo_politician 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A question to answer a question:
The Second World War has been over for 60 years. When will American troops finally leave Germany and Japan?
Exactly. The answer is "never".
2006-09-04 17:30:08 · answer #3 · answered by Nat 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not in a long time:
Condi and the rest of her goon squad was quoted as saying "These are just the birth pangs of a new democracy." She was reffering to the insurgency and the new secterian violence. Well once we give birth we are stuck with them till the finish high school. I guess its kind of late to go through an abortion now but I do know for sure that Bushes grandfather should have cut and run when he met he first had sex with his wife. Then maybe the Bush family would be pro abortion.
As you noticed, my favorite thing is just how the neo-con squad is all over these S H ITTY phrases like Ugly on Whoopi Goldberg.
Anyway I just hope it doesn't take too long because I am starting to miss my brother chilling over there (Damn it Bush could you hurry up and develop better oil pumps so we can move it here quicker).
2006-09-03 21:56:29 · answer #4 · answered by Ignorant_American 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bush will never pull the troops out. To do so would admit the incredible stupidity of sending them in there in the first place. Even if Bush's friends weren't making billions off the war dragging on and on, he wouldn't pull the troops out because his ego is way too large to admit a mistake.
You better believe that his ego is much more important to him than saving the lives of our brave soldiers serving over there.
We will have a new President in 2009. If it's a Democrat, the new president will pull them out fairly quickly. Then Bush will claim that if we had only stayed the course like he wanted us to, we would have won the war and all terrorists would have been defeated and we would all have lived happily ever after. And Republicans will believe him.
I can't hazard a guess what will happen if the new president is a Republican.
2006-09-03 21:42:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
12 to 18 months according to the president of Iraq and the U.S. general in charge of the forces there. Some might remain there to train the troops.
2006-09-03 22:54:16 · answer #6 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Since the US has not defined long-term and clear policy objectives nor figured out how even short-term ones (stable internal government) can be satisfied, there is no good answer to this question. The fear of even mainline Republicans like former secretary of state Colin Powell was that the lack of any firm plan on "how to get out?" was one of the biggest single failures in the planning for the invasion of Iraq.
2006-09-03 21:36:29 · answer #7 · answered by keithdodds 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well you could rush things along and vote in democrats so they can cut of funding for the war. Thus the soldiers will have to come home. Otherwise you'll wait until 2008 at least . I'm sorry but those are the facts.
2006-09-07 14:50:24 · answer #8 · answered by brian L 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well the main body of troops will probably pull out in 24-36 months. i think by then iraqi security forces will be able to take over. but troops will still be stationed as advisers, and we will probably keep some permenent military bases there to.
2006-09-03 21:42:54 · answer #9 · answered by _ 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
there going to be pulled out of iraq and sent to another country for the next stage of war on "terrorism"
2006-09-03 21:42:39 · answer #10 · answered by forzaitalia232569 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I suppose you think we should just run away like cowards and leave the people of Iraq to be overrun by warlords?
I am in the military and your ignorance is offensive to me.
2006-09-03 21:40:21 · answer #11 · answered by Big C 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋