A. We should cut our losses and have our troops return home.
B. We should stay ONLY to train the Iraqi Army
C. Troop Surge - let's WIN this war
Who should pay for rebuilding Iraq?
1. The United States should help rebuild Iraq and give them aid
2. Iraq should use their oil money and pay for it themselves
(I am in favor of C and 2)
2007-01-11 05:22:41 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
people - I HAVE an open mind and you have changed my mind -
3. Let them rebuild the majority of their own country with some help from us.
I am for C and 3 now - THANKS!
2007-01-11 05:38:36 · update #1
I agree, we need to stay, but we need to dust off our beautiful bombers and inflict some real damage and put the fear of God into these terrorist scumbags. Liberals are too braindead to understand that we need to fight terrorists in Iraq instead of the streets and cities of the United States. Let Iraq rebuild their own country
2007-01-11 05:31:50 · answer #1 · answered by ? 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
B and 1
2007-01-11 05:26:25 · answer #2 · answered by mrlebowski99 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yah Im gonna go with C and 2 also.
I think though that 20,000 troops isnt going to cut it. I am in favor of the draft if need be to end this thing.
They are never right about the level of troops needed, they will probably need ten times as many.
Flood the area, take down all dissenting militias, kill every single person who opposes and fights back, none of this sissy is right to kill them crap.
2. Its their country, they can pay for it and open up bidding on contracts to whoever they want.
If the Iraqis rebuild their own country it will start their economy off, provide young men with jobs so they are less likely to grown frustrated and join a terrorist militia group in the first place.
2007-01-11 05:29:09 · answer #3 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
With regard to the first part of your question, I wonder what "winning" this war is? Superficially, this is a "war on terror," right? So it's a war on, what, an ideology? How does one make absolutely sure that hatred, which drives terrorism, has been eradicated? Do you think that the terrorists are going to be forced to love us through military force? As long as there is hatred of the United States, there will be a desire to destroy it. Hatred is not something you can eliminate. So terror is the most ridiculous f**king thing someone can possibly declare war on. I don't see how we can "win" the war on terror. However, since our troops are there, supposedly training the Iraqi army now, sure, let them finish. But let's have a light at the end of the tunnel, shall we?
With regard to the second part of your question, you are being simplistic and selfish. Whether or not you agree with our "reasons" for doing it, we invaded and destroyed their country. Homes, places of worship, schools, hospitals - all these things have been destroyed as a direct result of OUR actions. Do you suggest that we invade, kill their families and destroy their lives in the name of "bringing democracy" to them, and then just LEAVE? We have an obligation. Bush has forced us to take on this obligation. Integrity demands that we see it through.
2007-01-11 05:33:48 · answer #4 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I also vote stay. We destroyed their military and doesn't even jpay the undesirable smucks $40 a month, hence ton of peed off adult men that are open for outdoors money to grow to be freedom fighters. As historic previous and info now shos us the deal become trumped up. instead of handling SA, we attack them. were given to grant to the military as they knew what to anticipate and nonetheless fought. If we pull out tit might want to be toatal choas equivalent to the 30 Years religious warfare in Germany which took about 2/3 of the populatioon of Germany and Austria. they doesn't have a danger as you've the multitude of Sunni international locations vs the Persia Iranian Shiites. Kurds ahve issues of Turkey and three million kurds over there. actual Powder Keg. regrettably if we go away all those murderers that Saddam let go basically berfore we were given there might want to have a container day. those individuals are basically now understaning what they coulld grow to be. If the English, French had had draw u . s . line predicated on human beings, instead of land, this would have not happened. having stated that if Carter had basically saved his seize close. Iran might want to nonetheless be an best chum.
2016-12-29 03:27:26 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
B, 2
2007-01-11 05:28:59 · answer #6 · answered by keri k 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
C2 what would a loss mean to th e US? What will happen if the Saudi's back the Sunnis and Iran continues to back the Shiites? What happens when the whole ME turns into a war zone? How much graver of a situation will Iraq be if the above happens and we have to redeploy troops to the region?
2007-01-11 05:30:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Here is what I think and seriously.. dont bash me becuz of my answer.
I think we should face the fact that we are not going to win this war I mean, think about it, its been 4 years. What have we accomplished so far? The more we stay there, the more Iraqis will retaliate. The best thing to do is B. Train their army and help get our troops back home. They don't deserve to die for we have nothing to gain in this battle. I think we've done enough damage to that country and their people.
2007-01-11 05:33:06 · answer #8 · answered by Fashionista 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
B & 1. I hope Bush keeps to his 11/07 plan and withdraw troops. I do agree with Bush that if we don't do something to help Iraq, it will be a safe haven for terrorists to plan hateful actions against USA and allies. I wish the world wasn't like this!!
2007-01-11 05:32:14 · answer #9 · answered by JAD 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
B and then 1 until the Iraqis sort out 2.
We owe them
2007-01-11 05:30:13 · answer #10 · answered by cloudbunny 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋