Why would you? Would it change anything?
2006-12-23 13:28:47 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
no, i wouldnt pull them out, because i would prefer to be the hunter instead of the hunted, being caught blindsided again.
the borders aint secure so we are still open for attacks.
as far as doing anything different, shock and awe would have
still been going on a lot longer than it did, and the death toll of u.s. soldiers would have been lower or none at all. destroying the sites of ammo, and artillery iraqi wide, training camps, shock an awe would have been enforced iraqi wide. soldiers and fighter pilots on the border to keep artillery from coming in and terrorists
entering would not happen from other countries.
navy on the water, would be lead info center, and radar watching with satelite link, marines would be first to enter closing the borders and using low grade nukes to impair tanks from other countries to come in, along with any vehicles(nuke use to
leave big gaps to where no one could pass). marines were the only ones authorized use in desert storm.
air force supply air cover, army heavy equipment support.
and all shoot to kill orders, no kids but be careful cause young ones could be used to carry explosives as well into heavy areas(just like in vietnam).
2006-12-23 14:23:54 · answer #1 · answered by sharma 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If I was pres, I would never have gone over there in the first place, but we cant go back in time. Eventually we will have to pull out, and IMO all hell will break loose, even worse than it is now. Ultimately, it seems like no one is in charge over there. The lawlessness is disgusting and i dont know how the hell you can stop that. Bush has told us time and time again that it is a temporary thing, HOWEVER, why have we built permanent bases there, and the world's largest embassy? It is a mess, do you think Bush really gives a rats *** about the poor iraqi people he was "liberating"? It is a mess, and either way we are screwed. Weve spent so many billions, and what do we have to show for all the money spent. I would say nothing good or tangible except for a whole region hating us even more and 3000 dead americans.
2006-12-23 21:39:14 · answer #2 · answered by ray 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
a fair question but there is no "quick" answer, even less a solution to the issue you raised. In pulling out or staying of troops -- there are a host of issues and departments and interests to take into consideration. Pulling out is not on the table right now -- nor could it be in the foreseeable future. why? because -- not of the presence of the American troops but because internal and civil situation in Iraq did not go according to the books -- if a pull out is done -- tomorrow, there would be ca hoes for the whole region and a worse situation than the current one. so the answer is definitely "NO". hope it helps -- at least it puts you on the right track on how best to better the situation. (then of course Kissinger likes might be of help).
2006-12-23 21:56:17 · answer #3 · answered by s t 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If I were President, I would bring all the American troops home. Yes, there would still be fighting in Iraq, but America cannot control that. Too many of our troops have already given their lives over there, it's time to bring them home.
2006-12-23 21:40:00 · answer #4 · answered by Miss J 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes,I will look into the new game plan to withdraw the troop little by little instead of bringing 30,000 more men and women.It will change the cause of war and I am happy that I do the Right thing.
2006-12-23 22:53:23 · answer #5 · answered by ryladie99 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't until we had some order and stability on the streets...I think we will be in Iraq for at least three years in some shape form or fashion to protect its and our oil interests.
2006-12-23 22:24:55 · answer #6 · answered by internet browser 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a heartbeat.
And think of all those heartbeats of all those young and relatively young men and women who are risking theirs just to satisfy an idiot's ego.
Not to mention the number of heartbeats of all of those innocent Iraqi's whose lives are a great risk simply of the continued presence of coalition forces. (No, that's not all Iraqis, but the vast majority.)
2006-12-24 01:50:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would pull them out slowly. not to fast and i would make sure iraq got established first. If we pull out now they are going to come to america and thats why we haven't yet.
2006-12-23 21:38:28 · answer #8 · answered by Armygirl 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
where the president? the white house.
2006-12-23 21:37:15 · answer #9 · answered by liz 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, they need to come home. What we've tried isn't working--it is time for a new strategy.
2006-12-23 21:53:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋