why can't our men come home from Iraq now?

Question

THE PRESIDENT WANTS THE DEMOCRATS TO GIVE HIM MONEY TO SEND MORE MEN TO IRAQ. WHY CAN'T WE PULL OUT NOW? IS IT WORTH LOSING MORE MEN?

Answer 1

*Yawn* A better question would be..."how can I support the troops and their families?" Why do people keep asking the same questions? Geesh. Okay let me break this down kindergarten style for you. From a PROUD ARMY WIFE....First, there are women there too that are proudly serving, Second, the troops WANT to be there and WANT to finish the job and dont WANT to come home before the job is DONE. I dont want my husband to come home before the job is done. As others have mentioned, many many many more troops died in previous conflicts. THIRD, dont speak for the troops, they want to be there so dont try to bring them home before the Iraqi government and our military is ready. FOURTH, if we leave Iraq in a mess, we will just have to go back anyway. The insurgents will have won and I dont want that to happen. Give troops time to train the Iraqi military and police force, continue to guide them, make sure they have the equipment that they need. And continue our presence there on a smaller scale. So SHHHHHH SHHH SH about bringing the troops home. Should have known the democrats didnt have the stomach for a drawn out war.

Answer 2

Because things would get much worse if we pulled out now. I did not agree with Bush's decision when he decided to go to war with Iraq. I think he should have at least waited for more support from our global allies in the matter. However, bringing the troops home now would be a bad thing. The way I think about it, us going to war with Iraq was like spilling a glass of milk. What do you do when you spill a glass of milk? You clean it up. If you don't it gets moldy, smelly, starts attracting bugs. You clean it up, because leaving the mess alone will never get any better, only worse. We owe it to the Iraqi people to stay there and try to clean up the mess we made. If we leave now, things will only go down hill. This is about accountability and responsibility on a grander scale.

Answer 3

i'm British. i did no longer help the 'motives' for our engagement/involvement. it is been shown that those motives have been 'fake' (or have been they?) ....... whether it is not 'that straightforward'. UN 'investigators' (re WMD) have been constantly 'thwarted' via Saddam. there have been dissimilar UN resolutions on which no-one had the braveness to 'act'. It grew to become into in trouble-free terms after 9/11 - (revenge?) - that action grew to become into taken and instigated via u . s . a .. have been we 'incorrect'? don't comprehend. I do think of 'timing' grew to become into badly incorrect. perchance motives too. yet in reality the lives of harmless civilians is being better - democracy(?) seems a real looking proposition. This advantages the folk. No. Our troops shouldn't come homestead now. it would be an utter waste of misplaced lives, militia and civilian, in the event that they did. the final, humanitarian 'purpose' would in no way be fulfilled. despite if we would desire to constantly be there or no longer - and why - is a 'political' difficulty. permit's no longer undermine our troops - very brave and brave men and girls people who do their interest even with non-public perspectives.

Answer 4

I agree with Dan & MK & Truth. We have lost 3,000 Servicemen and Women in Iraq, but we also lost 3,000 civilian men and women on September 11th. We are fighting to ensure a stable country for people that more often than not, Appreciate it!!!! And to ensure there are no more September 11ths. The Iraqis are doing great and while their army needs to step it up a bit, the country itself is progressing. The had a Democratic Election! Nothing is more sacred to people who were formerly executed for thinking the wrong thing! Most of Iraq is secured except Baghdad and the Iraq/Iran border. The troop surge will get this done.
We should assassinate Amadinejebad or whatever his name is.

Answer 5

We can't pull out now if we want the service members who have already made the ultimate sacrifice lives to mean something. I know its a hard concept to understand, but if we can suceed in establishing a free and democratic society in Iraq, atleast they wouldn't have given their lives in vain.

Answer 6

The job is not done. Iraq is our ally. We are for them, not against them and to leave them in a weakened state could spell disaster for the rest of the world who relies on their oil. The USA is one of the most selfless countries, fighting to help the rest of the world, and some of the most thankless are right here in our own nation.

If we leave now, the enemy will be appeased and may follow us home to our own soil, so why take that chance. Radical Islam is not to be trusted--they are a culture of death and there is no peace to them. So the only peace will come from our end, and that will come from VICTORY.

Answer 7

Because Iraq would implode and quickly become a training bed for Al-Qaeda. Bin Laden and his band of merry men would quickly determine that we have no will to defend our freedoms and we would have Ahmed and company blowing things up and killing Americans in our streets -- any questions?

Answer 8

Well, the president's contention is that if we pull out now, the enemy will come with our soldiers to the US through the same wormhole like on Howard the Duck.

Answer 9

Because there is a job that still needs to be done, come on now, look at the Iranians already sneaking across the Iraqi border.

Answer 10

Well, we aren't done in Iraq yet, and if we left now we would probably be bombed. If the terroroists in Iraq are still getting weapons to attack their own people, then they can definatly get weapons to attack us.