2006-11-30 03:12:53 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Probably worse.
2006-11-30 03:18:50 · answer #1 · answered by SatanicYoda 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Completely dependent on whether or not we successfully helped the Iraqi people build a stable government. It seems unreasonable to me to assume we would leave the region entirely based on historical precedence. We have, to this day, troops stationed in Japan, Okinawa, Germany, Britain, and pretty much everywhere over the world. It is my hope that we stay long enough, with sufficient troops to implement the plan to do this properly.
As to your "cut & run" part of this question, I don't think it applies as long as we stick with this until we are successful.
2006-11-30 11:31:23 · answer #2 · answered by Rich B 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's not gonna happen, Bush made it clear a couple of days ago that we are not pulling troops out, we are gonna stay the course with some strategic changes. Give it up, face the facts, we're not withdrawing our troops. Democrats don't want it either. The few that do, don't have the ground to stand on to get them out. We might have been fighting this war longer than World War 2, but the tragedies aren't in any comparison.
2006-11-30 11:21:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
That's all going to depend on the Iraqi's ability to maintain order.
Then again, Bush Sr didn't even have the gumption to even go into Iraq after running Saddam out of Kuwait.
2006-11-30 11:20:37 · answer #4 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bush won't cut and run. Next election a democrat will be elected and he will cut and run (yes HE, Hillary doesn't stand a chance).
2006-11-30 11:22:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hi!
I think it will be worse, cause there has been more dead soldiers in three years in Irak, than the soldiers that were killed in Vietnam for the same period of time.
Thank you!!
2006-11-30 11:29:08 · answer #6 · answered by ? Kotori 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋