Go long - stay longer in Iraq with gradual troop reduction.
Go big - send in significantly more troops to quell the all-out civil war to prevent it spilling over to other nations in the region. (The pentagon think there is a distinct posibility.)
Go home - obvious, no explanation needed.
Do you so-called conservatives (and the old garden variety Republican) see what Bush's hasty immature action did or do you want to wait a little longer still.
2006-11-20 08:35:00 · 10 answers · asked by childrenofthecorn 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Go big. We made this mess, we have a responsibility to clean it up. We need to stabilize that region. Walking away will only let the chaos we've already created escalate.
It was an incredibly stupid thing to do from the outset, going into Iraq. Bush, and the people who supported him shouldn't be still calling the shots over there, based on their track record alone. But, for the first time since the man took office, I find myself agreeing with him on one point. It's a mistake to leave Iraq in this mess. The entire region will implode.
However, it's idiotic to say that troop levels over there are sufficient, they are woefully inadequate at best. Big--overwhelmingly big, preferably--is the only chance we have at getting control.
BTW--I've voted pretty much straight Democrat in all elections, this last one included. The need for change in our leadership is obvious and necessary, but I believe we can't afford to compound the error we made (I say 'we' because over half of this country supported the invasion of Iraq, so much so that 'we' re-elected Bush for a second term) by leaving Iraq to it's fate. We will never see the end of violence in that region if we don't get control of it now. If we leave, and Iraq becomes a terrorist stronghold, how long do you imagine it will be until Israel is engaged? Anyone fancy a nuclear war in your lifetime?
Arcticchick--you seem to have forgotten that convenient intelligence failures, coverups, and deliberate circulation of misinformation have been the main attribute of GW Bush's administration. Your selected excerpts do a fine job of implying that, despite the fact that their support was based on erroneous information, the Democrats are to blame for the Iraq invasion. You demonstrate how well Bush & Co.'s tactics worked--and continue to work--on the segment of America's populace who refuse to acknowledge what terrible consequences have resulted from their support of this administration.
2006-11-20 08:54:17 · answer #1 · answered by functionary01 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Enough is enough. There have been nearly 3000 soldiers killed in Irak plus thousands more local casualties.
Fighting terrorism is an irrational goal. Continuing staying in Irak just make the hatred towards the american people and government worse.
My choice is to stablished some sort of form of local goverment and local Army and pull our troops out. Vietnam is doing pretty well, Irak will do good too.
So my choice is Go home, This should be a near future choice rather than an inmediate one, I'll say. 2 year max.
Great question btw
2006-11-20 08:43:49 · answer #2 · answered by Blunt 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I don't believe it was illconceived to invade Iraq. And I'm sure you are aware because of a bill Clinton passed we were allowed to invade Iraq. Also, unless you know everything behind the invasion which I highly doubt, unless you work intelligence, you haven't the slightest. So don't make unfounded statements such as 'Bush's hasty immature action.' Anyway considering I'm not a military strategist I'm not really sure, but, I'd go with sending in more troops.
2006-11-20 14:44:15 · answer #3 · answered by Brittany G 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I too am torn between BIG and HOME. Long just seems like a waste of time, money, and resources (ie: our soldiers!) however coming home seems to do the same.
As I've said from the beginning, if you're going to do it, get in there and DO IT and come home.
My main reason for being on the fence with this is the sheer lack of Iraqi assistance in handling the enemy. They do not seem to want to fight for the freedom we're offering, so why do they deserve it?
2006-11-20 08:41:49 · answer #4 · answered by Goose&Tonic 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Go HUGE. Get it over with and be done. We shouldn't have moved out of Afghanistan, but we did so I figure we finish it and finish it right. Leave no doubt we have the stones to finish this fight. It will do wonders with those who might be secretly pondering challenging us.
2006-11-20 08:51:08 · answer #5 · answered by Rich B 5 · 6⤊ 0⤋
I'm teetering between Big and Home. Long hasn't worked. But then again, I'm not going to enlist, so I'd say Home.
2006-11-20 08:37:54 · answer #6 · answered by Manny 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Go big and long, but with Iraqi troops instead of U.S. troops. They should train double or triple the amount they thought they needed. It should be the Iraqis patroling the streets and the U.S. attacking the trouble spots. It's the Iraqis' country to win or lose.
2006-11-20 08:59:42 · answer #7 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 1⤊ 5⤋
well not home anyway that would cause a mass civil war and innocent iraqies would be slaughtered, but you never know that is what bush's father did and saddam slaughtered them but you know like father like son.
2006-11-20 08:50:07 · answer #8 · answered by gina l 1 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Go big. We need more boots on the ground. We can't leave now or we'll end up fighting the terrorists on American soil - no, thanks! Besides, reenlistment is up - that tells me a lot about what is REALLY going on in Iraq.
Why did you have to add your snarky little slam at the end? You had a legit question and then dropped into partisanship. Fine - partisanship it is. Why didn't Bubba take Bin Laden when the Sudan tried to hand him over? Why did Bubba run out of Somalia with his tail between his legs? Why did Bubba cut the military AND intel budgets? Why did international intel say the same thing ours did? Why did the following Democrats lie?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
2006-11-20 09:20:36 · answer #9 · answered by Jadis 6 · 1⤊ 5⤋
i think the terrorists are debating the same thing amongst themselves
2006-11-20 08:48:37 · answer #10 · answered by sapace monkey 3 · 1⤊ 7⤋