With Iraq close to civil war and long term unrest, do we really need more American deaths there. Is it not clear that we are not wanted in this always hostile region?
2006-10-09 01:23:30 · 14 answers · asked by Kendall S 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
It was time long before now. If we had had the support of more the world I would be more forgiving for our losses(easy for me to say as I have been fortunate to not lose anyone close to me during this time). However we once again have put our own interests and ideals before the rest of the world. And to make matters worse, we have gained nothing. I am not calling for a war for oil but if we are going to lose our resources (ie troops, money) should we not get something in return? Yes it is time to bring our troops home. When we have solved the problems on our own soil then we can try to change the world.
Please understand, I support our troops with all my heart as they are in harms way. I just do not the support the decisions of our govt.
2006-10-09 01:37:26 · answer #1 · answered by Eric J 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Unfortunately, no.
Our untimely withdrawl would leave the country in an even bigger mess, and undoubtedly cause an all-out civil war that we would blamed for, and rightly so.
The issue is why we were sent there to begin with, and our President has yet to give us an honest answer. The biggest issue Americans should have right now is why he is not being held accountable. He has duped half of America into believing, against all evidence and common sense, that we are there battling terrorism. Additionally, he has ignored the concerns and requests of the military leaders in charge of the occupation.
When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the imperial dreams of PNAC ( http://www.newamericancentury.org/... ) became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. According to PNAC's own white paper documents, one of their KEY intentions is to establish PERMANANTLY based forces in Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East (Iraq). The American people, anxiously awaiting some sort of exit plan after America defeats Iraq, will see too late that no exit is planned. According to their own website, they want the United States, by way of economic and military force, to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana. The New World Order.
The biggest irony here is that many Americans support this war, and this administration, specifically because of how they believe it is fighting terrorism, yet our presence in Iraq can do nothing but increase that threat. The most significant legislative changes our President has passed primarily effect our very own rights, freedoms, liberties, and protections from our own government, and have further empowered the Presidency. Our borders are wide open, and we are poking at the hornet's nest.
Our problems are not so simple, and the least of them is Iraq. At this time, our law enforcement and our military are loyal to our government, not to our people, and this administration has just completed legislatively taking itself out of our control, and has made "dissent" an arguably illegal undertaking. In preparation for what's to come, our civil rights, liberties, freedoms, guarantees of due process, and protections from unfair treatment by our own government have been severely diminished by the Patriot Acts. Last week's "torture" bill shifted some powers from Congress to the President, further empowering him. Together, both documents VAGUELY redefine "terrorist" to easily implicate ANY American citizen as a "potential terrorist" or "potential enemy combatant" simply by the words MISSING from the document, that would protect us from such. While all this had been loudly pointed out in Congress, the bill was still passed, as is.
Consider also, the true role of FEMA, according to the bill that created that agency. In a (very vaguely defined) "national emergency", they take FULL CONTROL of industry, transportation, wages, employment, can relocate populations, enforce forced citizen labor, money, credit, utilities, communication, media...they BECOME our goverment, and cannot be reviewed by Congess for at least 6 months.
Good luck.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1912
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty"
Thomas Jefferson
2006-10-09 09:15:17 · answer #2 · answered by tat2me1960 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I was against the war in Iraq to begin with,But now that the AMERICANS made a commitment I dont think it is fair toIraq to leave until the job is done.It is going to be so much worse if they pull out entirely.A civil war of unprecedented proportion,a series of autonomous warlords and all kinds of other ugliness.Didnt Rumsfeld learn anything at all from the vietnam Cambodian fiasco??
2006-10-09 08:57:06 · answer #3 · answered by Paul I 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes we need to pull out of Iraq. Showing the terrorists that we do not have the resolve to stay through the end of an insurgency will not embolden them to start other campaigns in other countries. They will not follow us back home and commit more terror on our soils if we are just nice to the people who openly profess the desire to convert the world to Islam.
Just make sure you send the Al Quaida and Hezbollah your home address so that when they come here they will attack you instead of me.
2006-10-09 08:43:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
BRING THEM HOME!!!!! this whole thing is just dragging on way too long and more and more of our people are dying and for what? My best friend is in the national gaurd and my boyfriend is a US Marine i'm just waiting for them to be sent over in the next year or so and it scares me so bad there's no reason for it we're not doing any good over there we got the bad guy now lets get out!!!!
2006-10-09 08:26:10 · answer #5 · answered by Danielle S 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just leave the Iraqi people to get on with it by themselves. They will sort out this mess without anyone`s unwanted assistance. Blood will continue to be spilled, but at least it won`t be UK or US troops shedding it. Not ideal,but better than this craziness continuing.
2006-10-09 08:59:23 · answer #6 · answered by dingdong 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
considering it wasn't time to send them there in the first place, I must say we need to support our troops more than ever.. let's do this by bringing them home now.... why should the be wounded and killed over oil and our leader's wish to make the whole world as messed up as them..
2006-10-09 08:33:24 · answer #7 · answered by ancientcityentertainment 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It would be a poor time to pull out.
I trust our military on it.
Because I trust experts more than politicians who want to "cut & run".
The only reason why Democrats have surrendered is because they think it will gain them votes.
2006-10-09 08:28:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
with the terrorist concentraiting on attacking us over there, would you rather have them follow our troops back here and have them blow up our schools and public buildings, we have not been attacked since 9/11. That should tell you something, the stradegy works.
2006-10-09 08:27:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
no, if we leave now then the small number of U.S deaths willn mean nothing we need to stay the course and help get the area secure.
2006-10-09 08:51:14 · answer #10 · answered by The Ego 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋