MORE of our troops needlesly being killed in Iraq!
"Stay the course"?
Does it mean "Let's have our troops wander aimlessly while insurgent terrorists who have come to Iraq mainly to kill American troops and innocent Iraqi citizens maraude the country, so that my friends and I can reap the profits of no-bid government contracts and vast amounts of oil"?
Or is there something I'm not getting?
I mean, there were no WMD's, there was no Iraqi-terrorist collaboration...sure Saddam was an arrogant asss and treated his country poorly, but what dictator doesn't?
2006-10-18 03:34:11 · 9 answers · asked by a kinder, gentler me 7 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I hope 'dreamer' has read John J's answer...
-Troops ARE wandering aimlessly - the only point of them being there now is to BE THERE, and to combat the hostiles that have flooded Iraq in RESPONSE TO US BEING THERE!
-Again, the terrorists/hostiles are drawn to Iraq because US troops are there, and 'unwlecomed'...this does not mean they they would otherwise come to US soil and cause mayem here!
-Innocent Iraqis shouldn't have to die because WE feel they should not live under Husseins oppression! That is crusade-ish, 'mighty whitey' thinking. If they didn't rise up, then let them be oppressed - it IS NOT our problem.
-I DO watch the news plenty...as John said...the WMD's found were ANCIENT!
2006-10-18 05:31:48 · update #1
-If Saddam was a terrorist and a proper 'war on terror' target, then so is half of the worlds leaders! The difference? O - I - L - don't try to deny it.
-US troops fighting and being killed in the name of freedom - I have no problem with that...but when young people are being killed for no good reason? They are NOT giving their lives for freedom - they are giving their lives for money, and that is wrong!
2006-10-18 05:33:22 · update #2
The problem with him saying "Stay the course" is that he has yet to define "course".
Or to be more succinct, the course has no defined destination. The course itself, is to stay in Iraq. The destination would be an achievable victory condition. The only form of victory condition given is "defeat the terrorists" but it is shown that that can't be done militarily. Trying to do it militarily, as we have, has only created more terrorists, sort of like those old Chinese finger traps.
Thus if we want to achieve the victory condition, we have to leave the path that is failing and find a path that actually leads to that victory condition.
To address the poster above me:
1) The terrorists are actually an export from Iraq now. Many of the terrorists we are fighting in Afghanistan got their training fighting us in Iraq.
2)Some of the Iraqi citizens die, sure, if they were willing participants. Hundreds of thousands die because of our screw up, no.
3)The only chemical weapons found were ones that Regan and Bush Sr. gave him as a deterrent to Iran. These weapons are 20+ years old now and were well documented.
4) A lot of the military members who have died signed up for reserved and national guard duty before the Iraq war started not expecting to ever enter combat. Instead, since recruitment has gone down significantly, tours of duty are being extended long past what was actually contracted or should be expected of these people. Yes, I believe if you sign up for military duty, and there is a war, you should take part. But the national guard is not a military unit designed to fight internationally. It is a military unit designed to protect the homeland, under the control of the states (its a state militia, not a federal army). It is supposed to be there to respond to local disasters (remember Katrina?), not be thousands of miles away when disaster strikes...
2006-10-18 04:09:39 · answer #1 · answered by John J 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think he means to stay until a stable Iraqi government that the US government approves of is acheived. Unfortunately stay the course has come to mean to continue doing exactly as we have been doing, and that is not acheiving anything but giving us a bigger black eye in the middle east.
There were no WMD.
There were no terrorists until we allowed them to cross the border.
There has been way too much BS rhetoric trying to cover the mistakes and not enough work to correct them.
2006-10-18 12:44:35 · answer #2 · answered by Betty 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We are not protecting the USA from terrorists by staying in Iraq. We are being caught up in a civil war, and all the terrorism is strictly in-and about-Iraq, in Iraq.
To me, his ''stay the course'' means to keep bungling things up.
2006-10-18 20:00:21 · answer #3 · answered by Shossi 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Stay the course" means that he isn't leaving Iraq until his oil investments make more money despite the thousands of ppl dying. "Stay the course" also refers to how we (Americans) should keep spending time in a country that does not want us there or trusts us.
2006-10-18 15:10:44 · answer #4 · answered by imara219 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When Bush said "Stay the course"? , The ? mark was the only thing he understood. He has not a clue on what to do next, that saying "Stay the course" is a easy thing to say.
2006-10-19 00:22:32 · answer #5 · answered by spyderman131 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yep. I think you've pretty much got this one right. And no, there's nothing you're not getting. The situation was doomed to be a royal mess right from the start.
2006-10-18 10:51:48 · answer #6 · answered by explorationredwing 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Stay the course = We have no plan.
2006-10-18 10:51:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
rHe meant stay the course and stop thinking that poop innocent animals want to be raped ....A kinder gentler me
2006-10-18 14:21:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
remain stubern
2006-10-19 03:16:51 · answer #9 · answered by acid tongue 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋