Iraq is to let Bush continue to "lead" them.
Unless he gets 300,000 more troops over the next few months, into Iraq, the war will be over by 2008 just as James Baker wanted.
2007-01-16 14:40:14 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
That's one strategy that might work. The problem is that Bush is still dangerous. A lot of people think he's gearing up for war in Iran, which would be disastrous. He's spending our tax money on this war at an alarming rate, which will also be disastrous for the country. Plus escalation could make things even worse than they are now.
2007-01-16 14:45:56 · answer #1 · answered by Underground Man 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Unfortunately, our troops there may have a different view of "just leave things as they are", since they are the ones on the front lines doing the fighting. We need to bring the troops home NOW.
If anything the Dems should cut the purse strings so the megalomaniac will have to bring the troops home. They never should have been there to begin with. The cost in lives so far, 3000 of our people have died, and 34,452 Iraqis. Shameful, tragic and unnecessary.
2007-01-16 22:52:43 · answer #2 · answered by Slimsmom 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hey buddy good idea, stand down and let him implode?
ehhhhh! wrong answer, we cannot stand down in the protest or it will be a reason for him to stay in for a 3rd term . Havent you heard that? he plans on being in office till 2012 and he claims he will balance our budget by then. This fool is stupid enough to telegraph his punches, he cant keep his mouth shut. Now we know his real plan, he needs these 5 years and this war to take over this country. Don't worry about Iraq, they are incidental lookat the whole picture. It is America that is the target for the New World Order. Get it? Unless we protest he will escalate and put a mandatory stay action in Congress that he must stay in office for the war issue. ha ha what a coniving snake.
2007-01-16 23:33:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bush is basically doing that right now anyway. Iraq is a lost cause. The GOP will somehow try to find a way to pin the civil war on the democrats.
2007-01-16 22:57:46 · answer #4 · answered by Third Uncle 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think it could take a while before they get the troops out... if the dems hadn't said anything, we would still be using the same failed strategy... which would probably result in more deaths of troops...
if it was just him on the line... sure, but our troops are on the line...
2007-01-16 22:46:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Democrats will be blamed for letting him continue his action in the long run. Republicans will continue down this path no matter what(In my opinion). Debate doesnt solve problems, effective policy making and accountability does...
2007-01-16 22:49:48 · answer #6 · answered by SonicCube123 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There are too many lives at stake to stand by and let Bush self destruct.
2007-01-16 22:46:50 · answer #7 · answered by Michael da Man 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i think its a given no matter what the fluff is in the news and campaign lies ... that the troops are going to be in the middle east for years to come ... we have seen basically the same foreign policy through multiple presidencies and through both parties being in the whitehouse ... theres no reason to assume a miracle will take place and anything will change regarding US foreign policy in the middle east ...
2007-01-16 22:46:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
But think of the cost of lives on both sides if the conflict is allowed to continue for another two years.
2007-01-16 22:44:14 · answer #9 · answered by Draco Paladin 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
If the democrats do nothing and leave Bush to ruin everything unchecked, then come next election, the republican argument will be that the demorats sat back and did nothing, and will continue to do so.
2007-01-16 22:43:59 · answer #10 · answered by AxMan_12 3 · 5⤊ 3⤋