I've been reading a lot of opinions about the Iraq war, and while democrats say we should pull out on a time schedule, many republicans are saying no we need to stay in Iraq because we haven't won yet. Why on earth do we have to win? Isn't human life and the protection of the United states more important than winning and placating the chip on Bush's shoulder?
2006-11-17
04:43:56
·
14 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Other - Politics & Government
Birdsnake, Hillary Clinton does not supprt Bush. She supports our troops, and she supported Bush's decision to go to Iraq in the past, but totally disagrees with the way he is handling the war.
Her opinions of the Iraqi war are clearly documented on her senate website.
2006-11-17
04:58:08 ·
update #1
And how, I pray, is our military going to protect us when they are physically and mentally strapped,(not to mention the lack of equipment and protection!!!) the majority of them are not even in the US?
Noone said anything about an immediate pullout. We're talking a timetable. Even Bush has said the Iraqis need to take responsibitlity for their country and end the violence. All the top generals are screaming to Bush, "We're making more terrorists being here!"
Our country would be better protected on our soldier.
2006-11-17
05:05:53 ·
update #2
I agree, the day we pulled Saddam out of the hole is the day we should have packed up and left.
Perhaps going in there and saying "We're getting Saddam" had some merit, but this whole "spread democracy" thing was ridiculous. We don't even have democracy in the US.
2006-11-17 05:14:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by thehiddenangle 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
I agree to a point. This should not be about winning a war at this point, but I do believe it is too early to pull out. We have lost numerous soldiers in this and I would not want to loose a lot more by having to go back in later. I believe if we pull out now then some tyrant will rise up and we will have to go back in. I think it is in America's interest to have a stable government in place over there first and also some measures to ensure it isn't wiped out as soon as we leave. This should not be about Bush or any one person. Personally, I don't like how are political parties use issues like this to their advantage. That is something that is wrong with both the Democrat and Republican parties.
2006-11-17 04:52:51
·
answer #2
·
answered by Shiva07 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
I evaluate Iraq to a economic enterprise theft. The robbers, surrounded by using police forces, have made it sparkling they are actually not leaving devoid of a combat. The S.W.A.T. team is further in forcefully to get rid of the bandits. They typhoon the lobby and take out many robbers, securing the secure and teller line, yet there are nevertheless some undesirable adult adult males lurking approximately with hostages. the relax robbers could desire to be eradicated one by using one jointly as minimizing harmless casualties. Iraq isn't a conflict as a results of fact the media paints it, yet an ongoing police action. Victory is won by using decreasing violent crimes to a minimum of pre-conflict levels, and allowing an powerful government to manage undemanding societal desires like secure practices, well-being care, public works, etc. there are various oil fields in southern Iraq that are actually not even occupied or secure by using Coalition troops. there is not any secret GOP operation greedily pumping oil back to their mansions interior the u . s . a ..
2016-12-30 14:05:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by mccasland 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is a matter of not looking weak in the eyes of the terrorists. When Japan bombed Pearle Harbor the General of all the navies of Japan is quoted as saying "We have woken a sleeping giant" and for a long time other waring countries and nations left us alone because we were so powerful. If we pull out without being called "the winners" we will look weak and open the flood gates to more than just muslim extremists, we open our shores up to anyone who thinks they can defeat "the sleeping giant". And by the way quit believing everything you read in the media, it is always biased and one sided.
2006-11-17 04:54:29
·
answer #4
·
answered by Scooter Girl 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
Republicans have forgotten that we did "win" the objective in Iraq. To take out Sadaam Hussain (mission accomplished), find weapons of massive destruction (mission accomplished... there weren't any), and providing the Iraq people with an opportunity to vote in their own government (mission accomplished). Dealing with a civil war is quite another matter and the U.S. seems to have no known plan to allow the Iraqi's to handle their affairs. It's time for us to come home...
2006-11-17 04:53:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by mJc 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
What, you want a repeat of 9/11?
...and you whine about blood for oil. That's what they said about Desert Storm. So where's the oil from that?
You haven't got a clue do you.
_________
To mJc,
"find weapons of massive destruction (mission accomplished... there weren't any)"
I beg to differ, Sir. My brother was among those who found WMD's. We only saw 5 minutes about it on the news and then they cut to a less interesting story. It was on ABC, NBC, CNN and FOX news.
You can be just like all those who said they would leave the country if WMD's were found, you should have been gone by now!!!
2006-11-17 04:56:42
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
I'm not saying that I support everything about the war. You have to realize though, that regardless of why we went in, leaving too soon will result in the collapse of the new government, which will be replaced by groups who have repeatedly claimed that they are willing to die in order to destroy us and everything we stand for.
I don't see it as winning- I believe that everyone loses every war - I see it as allowing a potential ally enough time to be able to stand alone.
If we back out now, we will be sending a clear signal to our enemies that we can be defeated, and to our allies (and potential allies) that we cannot be counted on.
2006-11-17 04:55:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by Time to Shrug, Atlas 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
If we leave Iraq before we have won, there will be more Americans murdered on American soil. The Radical Islamic Extremists will see us as weak and not be afraid to attack again. I really wonder, why do leftist keep asking this question but never read any of the answers?
2006-11-17 04:53:03
·
answer #8
·
answered by dakota29575 4
·
2⤊
2⤋
You are so near sighted. The security of our Nation depends on the stability in the Middle East. Iraq must establish a government that can run itself. If we left now and all hell broke out, ten years later we are back over there trying to straighten things out, you'd be the first one crying, "Why didn't we get the job done the first time?"
2006-11-17 04:51:03
·
answer #9
·
answered by clsga 2
·
5⤊
3⤋
I agree. I think they're also trying to bolster their Ego. Winning in Iraq will give them the confidence to move onto their next victims,
Iran, North Korea, Syria, and anybody that doesn't do as they are
told.
2006-11-17 04:58:04
·
answer #10
·
answered by robert m 7
·
0⤊
2⤋