The way I see it, America cannot occupy Iraq for the next 4 years for the following reasons:
-The Iraqi people government won't let us
-Even if they did, the Iraqi PEOPLE wouldn't. There would be a popular uprising long before this time
-The American people won't stand for it, the war gets more unpopular by the month
-Even if the government tries, the pro-war candidates will get recalled/voted out and Congress will force a Vietnam-style withdrawl
-Bush leaves office in 2008, his policies are probably leaving with him given how unpopular he is
Whether we should stay or not is irrelevant. Whether we 'stay the course' or 'cut and run' or whatever isn't the US military's choice to make. Staying indefinitely makes no sense, leaving by a certain date makes no sense. Why stay through 2010 if we don't have to? It's the same as saying we can't win by that time. If the Army truly believes they cannot win within 4 years, what will more time do for the mission besides make it worse?
2006-10-11 15:51:39 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
A tar pit.
2006-10-11 15:58:55 · answer #1 · answered by moebiusfox 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Occupy Iraq until 2010? We aren't occupying Iraq now, we've never even tried. To call the country occupied we would have to be in control of it, like we were in Japan or Germany after WW2. All we're doing in Iraq is setting up our troops as targets. We can't Nation Build as long as the shooting is still going on, and the people have to want our help. Increasing numbers of Iraqis just want us gone, they see our presence as an attempt to destroy their culture and take control of their oil fields. Referring to the war as a "Crusade" doesn't help, nor does constantly saying the Iraqis had anything to do with 9/11. This has ceased to be conflict that can be won by military force, it's now about persuading the Iraqi people as a whole to choose a side, and we are doing nothing to make ourselves an appealing choice. Bush talked about "winning the peace as well as the war", but as long as the enemy is still under arms and killing our troops the war ain't over. Let's worry about winning the peace when we get one.
2006-10-12 00:32:04 · answer #2 · answered by rich k 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
- the iraqi people are bombarded with american psy-ops and have no idea what is going on but are lead to believe different sects are the cause of their problems hence they kill each other ... and the iraqi govt is a US puppet govt and other countries were not even aware this govt existed until we presented the "officials" to different meetings ... its all a facade and bs ...
- the american people wont do anything because they have been weakened through homeland security acts, the patriot act, the "torture" bill, executive orders, and propaganda in the media ... and besides that, all it would take is another so-called "terror" attack to send them into a frenzy of backing the war and broadening it to syria and iran. ... this scares the sh!t out of me actually coz people are so sheep=like in the ease they are manipulated.
-congress wont do anything because they obviously arnt pulling the strings on the military doctrine we have seen through the past two administrations ... its a larger plan that goes beyond political parties and points to people behind the scenes actually running the show.
-when bush leaves you can expect the same military doctrine to continue and syria and iran will most likely be left up to the next administration or there wil be this "terror" attack right before the next administration to seal-the-deal ..and get things moving ... make no mistake ... the entire middle east will be brought into line with US policy before you see things chill out over there and the US will effectively control 70% of the worlds oil, and be in a very strategic position to deal with china and asia in the years ahead .... i hope i am wrong about all this ... but i dont think so ...
2006-10-11 23:11:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
650,000 dead Iraqi to date, 2751 dead Americans, many more then that wounded. What a price to pay for a war based on a lie from the president. He should be in jail. No, I do not think we will still be in Iraq that long. Stay the course when you are failing is not an option.
2006-10-11 22:58:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's the whole problem in a nut shell, America is not trying to occupy Iraq, we're trying to force them to change their system of government, if we were trying to occupy them, then I wouldn't have a problem with the war.
2006-10-11 22:54:47 · answer #5 · answered by Tammy C 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Do you understand at any level of your limited intelligence that we are there at the invitation of the Iraqi Government? You should do a little more homework and get the real facts before people get wise to you.
2006-10-11 22:56:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
If the dumb a** insurgents would just lay low for 6 to 9 months we'd be out of there.
2006-10-11 22:53:36 · answer #7 · answered by Eldude 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Oh, we can stay there, but will there by any Iraqis left or will they all have blown each other up because they can't get along with one another?
2006-10-11 22:55:00 · answer #8 · answered by fearslady 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The purpose was to free democratic , effective goverment,
not the occupation
2006-10-11 22:54:45 · answer #9 · answered by rav 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We can occupy Iraq until China decides to collect our debt.
2006-10-11 22:55:25 · answer #10 · answered by A Box of Signs 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋