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

2006-11-03 10:58:26 · 11 answers · asked by vdubbchick 4 in Politics & Government Military

11 answers

Yes, and it's actually quite simple. Give the Iraqi government a SPECIFIC deadline to withdraw coalition troops and stick to it. They are not holding up their end of the deal. They think if they continue to appear weak and in distress that we will stay inevitably, and we seem to be falling into that trap. Our administration needs to get a clue that they are really being played by these people. How's April 1st. No Foolin'.

2006-11-03 11:59:41 · answer #1 · answered by sicilia 2 · 0 1

good question, I challenge anyone to come up with a proper answer, I challenge Bush, democrats and republicans to come up with a solution.

- If our troops leave, the insurgents will take over, simply because they are more powerful than the current Iraqi troops, police etc.

- If our troops stay, it is gonna be another Vietnam, we simply can not defeat the insurgency. It is not about military superiority. Months of battles have clearly proven than we can not beat them.

Iraq war is a big fiasco, Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction nor was it involved in anyway in 9/11, so why did we attack!, I honestly do not know and I do not think that blaming the intelligence is the appropriate justification for this big fiasco.

I am also not hearing anything in the news about a "winning scenario", I hear a lot of people asking about an exit scenario, but is there anything that can be done to salvage this experience. I am just so ashamed, I can not ever look an Iraqi in the face from the shame. Our government is responsible for destroying their country and the hundreds of thousands of deaths!!

2006-11-03 11:12:50 · answer #2 · answered by fozio 6 · 1 0

If anyone can find a solution to end this war in Iraq, be sure to get in touch with Bush/CheneyRumsfelf/Rice, because they DO NOT have any solution but "stay the course". It will take many years and probably presidents number above 50 to find an end.

2006-11-03 11:07:43 · answer #3 · answered by me_worry? 4 · 0 0

I think we should take all the good Iraqi people out of Iraq and give them safe passage to a temporary safe haven then send in 100,000 troops and kill anything that moves. Only the terrorists will be left there. Then all the good Iraqi people can return to their homeland and have a peaceful life without the threat of the bad Iraqi terrorists. The way it is now is just a waste of lives, time, and money. This can go on for a hundred more years as it has in many other wars like this throughout history.

2006-11-03 11:11:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

The U.S. has set goals and will have accomplished many of them.
The first one was to set up a democratic government. That has happened.

The second objective is to train the police and military and that will be finished by the end of this year.

The third objective is to start handing land back to the Iraqis. 50% will have been handed back to Iraq by the end of this year. I think 75% will be handed back in the first or second quarter of next year. Sometime in 2007 or the first quarter of 2008 100% of the land will have been handed back to Iraq. Then the military can finish up in Afganistan.

2006-11-03 11:13:55 · answer #5 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 0 0

Right now, no. I do think that pulling our great troops out of Iraq is a bad idea, though. I think if that happens, the Al Quida will gain more power, then eventually take over. I think we need to say in and finish. Also, some other countries could get off their asses and help out with NK, since they are breaking UN deals or something.

2006-11-03 11:04:28 · answer #6 · answered by Kallie 4 · 0 0

You all and sundry is heavily nuts.. before everything, Obama wasn't the only accumulating the intel and executing the undertaking. He wasn't on the helicopter with SEAL group Six. As a conservative, i'm going to even nonetheless credit him with killing Bin weighted down and Al-Awlaki, even regardless of the reality that Awlaki replaced into an American citizen with out expenses extra against him, he mandatory to die. lower back as a conservative, i'm going to assert that Bush incredibly replaced into no angel mutually because it have been given right here to spending and economic coverage.. yet as quickly as you heavily are going accountable Bush for actually the out of control spending that has surpassed off shrink than this administration, then you definately particularly are innovations lifeless.

2016-11-27 01:52:04 · answer #7 · answered by criselda 3 · 0 0

Yes there is.The people need to protest like they did before.
The American People protested the Vietnam war.As crazy
and radical as they appeared...they made a change.We
still have the right to public protests.The government will
respond to massive protests against the war.They don't
want the world to see through the media anything that will
stop them from their "war on terror".Our own people are
getting killed for nothing.I think that they need to fight
terror with terror... not our military.They should round up
the worst criminals in our jails and send them there.

2006-11-03 11:25:07 · answer #8 · answered by dan l 1 · 0 0

Yes there is, and it is called WITHDRAW. We never had a reason to be there except for maybe to steal their resources....or to bring them into the Euro banking system....not that either of those are legitimate reasons, but they are the logical ones.

We should leave NOW.

2006-11-03 11:13:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yes, pull all of our troops out and then nuke them. And then make sure Iran, North Korea etc get the message that they are next if they act up!

2006-11-03 11:18:08 · answer #10 · answered by ready4home 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers