English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I am confused.....would you rather our troops be in Iraq screwing around or would you rather they be training for a real threat (i.e. North Korea)? Because being in Iraq is killing our military. I see it everyday. Endless deployments, death, destruction, divorce, PTSD, etc. Is Iraq worth it? I think not. North Korea scares me a whole lot worse.

2006-10-26 14:13:18 · 12 answers · asked by Cold Stone 2 in Politics & Government Politics

Our troops are screwing around in Iraq. They are walking target caught between sunnis and shias trying to destroy each other.....

Also, North Korea is a huge threat to Japan, South Korea and our military bases in the Western Pacific.

2006-10-26 14:22:48 · update #1

12 answers

Cut and run. Leave without finishing the task at hand because of public opinion. Usama Bin Laden said that "the Americans cannot win, they have no taste for blood." Just like what happened in Somalia.

Here are some more for you!

"We should fully understand our religion. Fighting is a part of our religion and our Sharia [an Islamic legal code]. Those who love God and his Prophet and this religion cannot deny that. Whoever denies even a minor tenet of our religion commits the gravest sin in Islam."

"Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God . . . . I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America. Time Magazine

"The pieces of the bodies of infidels were flying like dust particles. If you would have seen it with your own eyes, you would have been very pleased, and your heart would have been filled with joy." -- At the wedding of his son in southern Kandahar about the 17 sailors who died suicide bombing of the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen

"Every American man is an enemy to us." -- Independent.

" . . . It is far better for anyone to kill a single American soldier than to squander his efforts on other activities." -- May 1998

"We--with God's help--call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson." Feb. 1998 - Bin Laden edict

``We are seeking to incite the (Islamic) nation to rise up to liberate its land and to (conduct) jihad (holy war) for the sake of God." -- al-Jazeera, June 1999.

"`I was never afraid of death ... As Muslims, we believe that when we die, we go to heaven. Before a battle, God sends us ... tranquility." -- Independent, 1993.

"I'm fighting so I can die a martyr and go to heaven to meet God. Our fight now is against the Americans." -- Osama bin Laden, quoted by Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper

"We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation." - Osama bin Laden - to CNN in March 1997

" . . . For the American forces to expect anything from me personally reflects a very narrow perception. Thousands of millions of Muslims are angry. The Americans should expect reactions from the Muslim world that are proportionate to the injustice they inflict." to Time Magazine Dec 1998

Responding to the question "are you trying to acquire chemical and nuclear weapons?"

"Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so. And if I seek to acquire these weapons, I am carrying out a duty. It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims." Time Magazine Dec 1998

Now do you want someone like him running Iraq?

2006-10-26 14:23:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

"Cut and run" means to leave immediately and let the Civil War proceed while the Iraqi government has no chance of controlling it, and therefore will not survive, meaning that Iraq will likely become a radical Islamist republic and a training ground for terrorists.

The alternative, incidentally, is not "stay the course" and complete the original agenda. That seems very unlikely at this point. Instead, there are a number of intermediate alternatives that involve staying for a period of time and helping the government to a certain level of autonomy (that level to be defined, based on what appears to be best for Iraq and the rest of the world). And while helping the government, we need to PRESS them to move with all due speed to become autonomous, because we are not making an open-ended commitment to staying there.

Brooks B had a lot to say on this topic ... mainly that he isn't afraid of terrorists (although he has no sense of the actual number of motor vehicle deaths, and also doesn't seem to realize that terrorist events could become far worse than the 9/11 attack).

Given that Brooks B thought it was a conservative who spoke the lines "we have nothing to fear but fear itself," he obviously has not studied history. (For those who haven't yet taken a course in US History, the line was spoken by President Franklin Roosevelt, author of the New Deal, and the patron saint of liberals ... not that the quote has anything to do with this question about "cut and run.")

2006-10-26 15:09:34 · answer #2 · answered by actuator 5 · 0 1

The United States's biggest fear concerning nuclear weapons in North Korea isn't the North Koreans' propensity to use them, but rather the possibility of sales to other nations, which could easily be just proxies for the Islamic radicals.

I fear the Islamic radicals and their tactics of indiscriminately murdering and maiming thousands of innocent men, women and children in the name of a demented ideology far more than North Korea.

North Korea is a possible and perceived threat to our safety - the Islamic radicals are a real and present threat.

Their demand is clear: You will convert to Islam - or you will die.

I don't like either option.

2006-10-26 14:29:20 · answer #3 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1 1

As soon as the election is over expect to start seeing some cutting and running out of Iraq. Of course they will redefine the terminology and declare it some sort of victory. They are already moving away from ‘stay the course’. They would have started already except they would rather let our troops stay there and die rather than lose votes in two weeks. In any case, they need to do something before the 2008 elections if they want to retain the White House. Doesn’t it make you feel good to know that we will declare ourselves successful and victorious? I just wonder why we didn’t declare victory before now and save all those wasted lives.

2006-10-26 14:23:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Reading some of the responses you've gotten just makes me more sure that the average American conservative has taken the Bushies' fear bait hook, line, and sinker....

The truth is - we have very little to fear from terrorists. Sure - it's horrible when a terrorist attack occur, tragic even.... but put it in perspective - how many Americans have been killed by terrorism in the last 6 years? Like 3000... How many Americans have been killed in car crashes in the last 6 years? I don't have the exact number, but I'm guessing it's well over 30,000.... does that mean that car crashes are more dangerous than terrorism? No. But it does make the idea that terrorists will somehow be able to take over our country and force us to convert to Islam seem pretty insane. The only thing that terrorists want to do is create an atmosphere of fear - and you Republicans seem only too happy to do just that. You guys are so scared of the possibility of another terrorist attack that you've been willing to sacrifise more lives FIGHTING terrorism than have actually been taken BY terrorism.

Getting out of Iraq immediately is a horrible idea - and 90% of Democrats agree with that.... None of you Republican apologists even addressed the fact that Democrats are not proposing anything like "cut and run", all you did was spout off a bunch of crap about how scared of terrorists we should all be.

I for one and not afraid of terrorists.

edit -
It apparently wasn't it a conservative that said "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"? But it still seems today's conservatives need to pay a bit more attention to history.... oh yeah, actuator, aside from my one incorrect fact (which I remind you was posed as a question "wasn't it a conservative...") you didn't do a damn thing to disprove a single one of my points. Your fear of terrorism only feeds more terrorism. The idea that most Democrats want to "cut and run" from Iraq is simply absurd and untrue... and as we all know - terrorists have never pulled off an attack that killed as many people as we've sent to their deaths to try to defeat terrorism.

I win. You lose.

2006-10-26 14:40:52 · answer #5 · answered by Brooks B 3 · 0 1

33,000 marines are in S.Korea all day every day. Trip wire. You think not on Iraq well we will tell Gen. Abizaid. You don't seem to mind the troops suffering all the hardship listed as long as YOU agree with the cause, and it's not Iraq. Your concerns are dully noted, have a nice day.

2006-10-26 14:21:13 · answer #6 · answered by razeumright 3 · 2 1

the troops aren't "screwing around" in Iraq.
By the way, what is your opinion about North Korea? the use of force? Because if that were to happen, you'd be on here bitching about why we have troops in North Korea, right or wrong?

2006-10-26 14:17:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

If we cut n run from Iraq, NK will take that as a sign of our weakness...

Why would you be afraid of lil kim? He is for sale to the highest bidder and is just trying to make some money. Once he makes good on his threat, he has also used up his saleable goods...

2006-10-26 14:17:19 · answer #8 · answered by ? 7 · 3 1

No, we even have: - Bush tax cuts for all individuals (even people who do no longer pay taxes have been given "refunds") have resulted in greater suitable spending with the help of the interior maximum sector, bringing fairly a lot of recent tax sales to the government. reducing tax expenses ends up in larger tax sales. it is like a sale on the dep. shop. in case you value $one hundred for an merchandise and sell 10 of them, your sales are $one thousand. in case you have a 25% off sale, you will sell greater of them. in case you sell 20 instead of 10, you will get $1500, a 50% boost in sales. So while the fee (tax fee) is decreased, greater money is obtainable in. - traders (which incorporates possibly eighty% of all individuals now, the two via direct investments or 401(ok) or IRA autos) have in basic terms pushed the inventory marketplace to a various all time intense, final at over 12000 for the 1st time. this would not take place in a recession, interior the form of economic equipment that the dems and the clicking decide for you to think of we've. seem around you. inner maximum money is using new shape and significant remodling and restoration even in great rust belt cities. I stay in an area of residences that are 20-30 years previous, and absolutely everyone around me is updating kitchens, loos, increasing their properties. Does that take place as quickly as we are all unemployed? NO, and it CREATES jobs too. i'll grant you that the two factors of congress have not come via on some concerns of national magnitude, and that the republicans did no longer push via many conservative subjects that their ingredients demanded while they elected them. yet right here is all of the incentive i could desire to maintain my republican congressmen in workplace: do you opt for Nancy Pelosi as your Speaker, in basic terms at the back of the vp in line for the Oval workplace? do you opt for Charlie Rangold in a management place? do you opt for to make certain greater acceptable courtroom justices like Alito, or do you opt for to make certain greater like Gisnburg? decide for Dems as against Reps, and you will see our shape proceed to be eroded, discarded in desire of 'international regulation' recommendations. you will proceed to lose the rights to do inclusive of your sources as you like. Already, the environmentalists can bar you from using your land, and municipalities can take it away to grant to a developer. decide for greater of the comparable? decide for democrats.

2016-10-03 00:15:09 · answer #9 · answered by Erika 4 · 0 0

actually dems said we should just put deadlines and set goals in the war... then Repubicans said that we wanted to cut and run...

apparently they can't tell the difference...

and the funny thing is... Bush now may be putting deadlines on Iraq... or "cutting and running" according to Republicans...

2006-10-26 14:17:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

fedest.com, questions and answers