If so,..please hip me to what it is exactly,briefly if possible..thanks!
2006-09-27 17:33:30 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I respect the offices of US Government,irregardless of the Presidents political party...
2006-09-27 17:49:18 · update #1
Just as I respect all of you & your opinions...which I find interesting & even though I may disagree with ya,no name calling or accusations necessary...USA rocks!
2006-09-27 17:51:43 · update #2
Everyone keeps talking about an "exit" strategy.
Name one war that we have engaged in and won that we have removed military presence from that country.
There are military bases in every country that we have had a conflict with and they will stay there for many years to come. We might reduce the military presence, but it never "exits."
Why doesn't Bush have an "exit" strategy, quite simply because there never will be one. We will always have a military presence in Iraq.
Just like we do in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc..
US policy regarding war (on both democratic and republican lead conflicts) has always been... once a presence, always a presence.
2006-09-27 17:50:39 · answer #1 · answered by wldathrt77 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Give the chiefs of staff and the generals on the ground the go ahead, and let them decide how to pull the troops out. Rumsfeld has a tight grip on the decisions being made, that's why the retired guys are complaining about him so much. Rumsfeld isn't a military man. Bush Sr was smart enough to let Powell and Schwarzkopf make the call in Gulf war 1, and it went well. Let the generals do their jobs!! Rumsfeld micromanages everything, and thats the kind of thinking that sunk us in Nam.
The Iraqis have to be responsible, and as long as we keep running the show they won't take it seriously. Very few of them have any real experience, so they need to be tossed in head first, sink or swim.
If you disagree it's ok - but I would ask you to tell me what is going to work better.
2006-09-28 00:57:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Systematic deployment, systematic recall to cut down on losses and foster independence within the Iraqi government. Senators Feingold and Kerry have offered this numerous times. Critics call this "cut and run", but they've forgotten another conflict called Vietnam. There is no overall plan of action anyway from the President, whose friends in the military and oil industries are reaping MILLIONS from this never-ending conflict, while our sons and daughters continue to die. Ironically, the logic says that in order NOT to betray our already-fallen troops, we need to keep sending our soldiers over to steep up the body count.
It's like a modern-day "Catch-22" only even darker.
2006-09-28 00:43:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Since Bush(The TERROR President) has never had a plan, any change in this insane war would be good and the dems have a few good ideas, like not being cannon fodder in a civil war. Devide the country into three nationalities with the resources of the country devided up too.
But since Bush(The TERROR President) has all three branches of government in his control, and has for the last ten years, its hard to blame the dems. That doesnt stop the reps from trying though.
You know, after the mid-terms, Bush(The TERROR President) will get around to calling it what it is- a civil war. You dont hear much about the war right now.......you will.
2006-09-28 00:59:30 · answer #4 · answered by qwondre 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
1. Shift the responsibility for International Affairs to the State Department instead of the War Dept - diplomacy.
2. Engage the rest of the world in a peaceful solution.
3. Forget democracy - set up a govt like Egypt - secular - heavy handed approach with terrorists yet wants to make friends with the world.
4. Get control of Congress so Bush can no longer bully; the in 2008 elect a JFK type Democratic President - someone we can trust who has a brain attached to his mouth.
2006-09-28 00:41:22 · answer #5 · answered by papamarlee 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
US has already won the war. Taliban/Ossama's and Sadam's military has been defeated and no WMD found.
We are not Occupiers, we are Liberaters
Democracy is not the way of life for Iraq, or Afghanistan.
How they fight amongst themselves, is none of our business.
We are too rich to be stealing some ones OIL.
We are too strong to be beating on the super weak.
Bring the troops home. That should be the plan.
2006-09-28 00:59:28 · answer #6 · answered by SS 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
While listening to several Democrat leaders I have not heard them come up with a good solution about how to get the U.S.A. out of Iraq other than pull all the troops out now.
2006-09-28 01:04:42 · answer #7 · answered by fatboysdaddy 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't matter how this question gets asked.
NO PLAN.
Nothing but blame and denial of any reprisals from walking away.
I, personally hope Republicans are wrong this time. The Democrats are going to hop up and down on this issue until it doesn't matter who the president is, we will leave Iraq unfinished. They keep hollering about Vietnam, and yet they seem to forget how horrible the aftermath was for our country.
They haven't offered one real solution. They just want us out.
If the terrorists turn us into Spain, currently subjugated by terrorism, what then, liberals? What then is the question, not whose fault it is...
2006-09-28 00:43:59 · answer #8 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
We will never know yet because YOUR President stold two elections. Where is his plan?
PS
Republicans in control of all three branches of government...still complain and have no solutions
Ok I agree with "asker" I edited out my name calling but will you edit out irregardless. It isn't a word?
I respected every "office" until this current President. I lost my respect when MILLIONS of dollars poured in for his campaign. I lost it even more as days passed by but lost it totally when he had a BIGASS part upon his second inaugaration yet he asked us to be prepared to sacrifice shortly after 9/11. This in it self is a slap in the face to all those sacrificing (esp. the TROOPs) while he continues business as normal
I know private dollars financed the party but you hink Bush could said" No Thanks, we are at war and I've got a job to do? T
2006-09-28 00:40:58 · answer #9 · answered by bconehead 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
as far as I can tell... we want to form and exit plan with the generals and put it into action...set deadlines and work to make them a reality... we can move them back if the climate changes, but just to get some positive momentum going and set a plan...
right now there doesn't seem to be any aims or goals or deadlines for anything... if you run a company like that, you're out of business in about a month...
2006-09-28 00:40:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋