The administration says that if we set a timetable then the insurgents will simply out wait us. I can see the logic in that, but it also implies that whatever it is that we are trying to accomplish wont happen anywhere in the forseeable future. So how bad does it have to be before we say, "Ok enough is enough. You guys are on your own." Or how good before we say "Great. Our Job here is done. We can leave with a clear conscience."
2006-10-23 03:28:46 · 16 answers · asked by Chris D 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
We can not cut and run as conservative like quoting! Bush created a problem! As stupid as it sounds, we have to back out, let them battle it out, then go back in and do it right. Our great great grandchildren will still be in Iraq!
BTW Did you ever hear the British complain about being able to leave there after only 200 years?
2006-10-23 03:38:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anarchy99 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The problem is the way this is put. The question isn't how bad does it have to get before we leave. Taking that approach ensures that the insurgents win. The question is what has to happen before we can leave the region without leaving the Iraqis high and dry. And I would say a lot has to happen. We shouldn't leave until an iraqi security force, operating under the control of the elected iraqi government, has been trained and equipped to do the job. How long is that going to take? Ask someone who wants a time table. While your at it, ask them what THEIR solution is. They don't have one. Whether or not you agree with entering iraq in the first place is a moot point, because we're in now. And just pulling out and telling the iraqis "see ya!" isn't a viable solution
2006-10-23 03:40:05 · answer #2 · answered by shinobisoulxxx 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
When Iraq's government is strong enough to stand on its own, and when the Iraqis who ignore when the insurgents set down IEDs STOP IGNORING IT.
Then, the insurgents won't be attacking as much, and the government will be able to take care of the ones who do.
If we lose Iraq, we lose the Middle East. That would be a very bad thing. We need another stable country that's at least neutral towards us and our allies there.
2006-10-23 03:43:22 · answer #3 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Being a conservative Republican, who initially supported the war, and still agree that Saddam was someone who needed to stand trial, the problem to me is this..... I would love to bring our boys and girls home tomorrow, but we have indeed made a mess. We've made a void in the country, and if we don't wait until their government is strong enough to fill that void, that all will have been for naught. The people of Iraq are not accustomed to freedom. They don't know how to use it to help themselves. If we leave now, another dictator will step in and assume power, and the mess will only be bigger. If we can wait until Iraq can be divided into the different religious areas, then at least we have a chance to A) leave with some degree of peace in the area, and B) leave with our heads still raised. God Bless our troops serving, regardless of what you think of our policy.
2006-10-23 03:37:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Obama's marketing campaign is a made for television mini sequence and the holiday to Iraq is an episode. the images of Obama as we talk with Chuck 'Vote Fraud" Hagel sitting next to him were designed to create some pretend result because they appeared as if they were keen on an old time 8 mm digicam. obviously Obama is the sequel to Little George because all 3 significant television networks follow Obama round because those networks are owned by technique of a similar undesirable adult males who personal Little George and Obama. Obama's movie team might want to equate a snowy photo with probability to provide the viewer the feeling Obama is putting himself in large probability to flow over to the Mid East. wager it truly is why the communi$t Greek whore AKA Huffingtonpost is declaring McCain printed something about Obama's holiday which may positioned Obama in damage's way which for sure McCain did not. a reporter requested McCain the position Obama replaced into as if the reporter knew precisely the position Obama replaced into. undesirable guy media theatrics to throw election to Obama.
2016-12-05 03:29:19 · answer #5 · answered by mehaffey 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
After we ran from Vietnam.millions of people were executed....the same will happen here....we started something that should be finished....The idea that if we get a bloody nose we leave is one reason countries are now defiant against the U.N.
They know the world can't handle deaths and will eventually go away.
2006-10-23 03:39:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Look at Korea 50+ years later!
2006-10-23 03:31:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Iraq has to have a stable government that is clearly in control of the country and able to defend the country from outside takeover from neighbors, such as Iran.
With the on-the-cheap way we have mishandled things, I see that happening about... oh, say...never.
2006-10-23 03:32:10 · answer #8 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
it couldn't be more simple . their government has to take over completely before we leave . this war has been in the making for a very long time and could last even longer . i wouldn't expect a pull out until 2010 at the earliest
2006-10-23 03:35:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
According to Bush, the winning of THIS secret "prize" must occur first!...
http://www.strayreality.com/Lanis_Strayreality/iraq.htm
2006-10-23 03:42:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋