English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

After we pull out of Iraq in disgrace and thousands of Iraqi police die (are executed) for helping the Americans what next??? Any of you morons ever think about tomorrow and what effect your actions have!

2007-02-16 15:38:13 · 9 answers · asked by Chester's Liver 2 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

9 answers

I literally pray to God that they dont cut funding for our troops. God bless them and be with them

2007-02-16 15:42:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

And how will the situation have changed after another three thousand American servicemen die in someone else's war?

Most of the Democrats aren't recommending immediately pulling out. They (like the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and many of the generals) are recommending a phased withdrawal that will take almost two years, to make sure the Iraqis have a handle on their own country as we go.

2007-02-16 23:47:06 · answer #2 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 1 0

What is really ashame is the American people tolerance of the current Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives. Do they really represent us or their own personal cause. Are they truely vested in "whats best for our country". If you believe that securing a democracy in Iraq will automately make our own country safer we must continue the fight to "save" the people of Iraq from another dictatorship that could be even more ruthless than the last. If you believe that it doesn't matter what happens in Iraq and the Middle East then maybe we should have our soldiers come home and have them secure our borders to the extent that that we become more isolationist. If Iran already has a Nuclear bomb how much are we and our friends around the world in danger. Or is the Iranian president not interested in dominating the Middle East. What we don't need is another election based on the "Democrats" "do and say whatever is needed to gain power" Is this another "what is the definition of "is" is.

2007-02-17 00:05:57 · answer #3 · answered by INFOMINDSOLUTIONS 2 · 0 1

Vietnam. I see the same kind of betrayal in Iraq as in Vietnam.
In both cases America engaged in a war that was not in our national interest. We are going to have to stand by and see the consequences of our meddling and exploitation. The will to continue on in this quagmire is eroding daily. I think about tomorrow all the time. I wish the Bush administration knew how to do that prior to this invasion.

2007-02-17 00:29:21 · answer #4 · answered by planksheer 7 · 0 0

Nixon didn't think about it much when millions were slaughtered after we abandoned the South Vietnamess!

I think Bush should have thought about it a little more when he made the assinine decision to attack Iraq.

Bush's father said:

""I'll never forget," he said, when Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin Powell "came over and said it was time to end the fighting -- mission accomplished. I said, 'Do [Gen. Norman] Schwarzkopf and the commanders agree.'"

Bush said that within 30 seconds Powell had Schwarzkopf on the phone assuring him that the mission had been accomplished.

"I don't believe in mission creep," he continued. "Had we gone into Baghdad -- we could have done it, you guys could have done it, you could have been there in 48 hours -- and then what?

"Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most-secure dictator in the world?

"Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho?" he asked. "We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power -- America in an Arab land -- with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."

Bush said, "We don't gain the size of our victory by how many innocent kids running away -- even though they're bad guys -- that we can slaughter. ... We're American soldiers; we don't do business that way."

"Am I happy that S.O.B. is still there?" Bush asked, then answered, "No." .......

Returning to the issue of Hussein's longevity, Bush jokingly called it "a sore spot with me" to be "out of work while Saddam Hussein still has a job. It's not fair," he asserted.

Still however, "he is no threat to invade another sovereign nation, and pillage its culture, and murder its citizens. He can brutalize his own people, and torment and torture them, but he can no longer pose a threat to his neighbors. And that's just one of the benefits" of Desert Storm. _ Public affairs, US Army

2007-02-16 23:53:12 · answer #5 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0 0

Why would anybody think that admitting you are fighting an un-winnable war that could drag on for decades and decades and millions of people could potentially get killed for no noble cause, can be construed as pulling out of Iraq "in disgrace"?

Furthermore, why resort to name calling?

2007-02-16 23:45:23 · answer #6 · answered by Brotherhood 7 · 1 1

The democrats will blame Bush , because he listened to the majority of America, then the dems. will use it on their campain speeches " I will not listen to the majority of people when it comes to saving our country,like Mr. Bush did ... so I demand a tax increase so I can have a jet like Nancy" that will be the new dem campain speech

2007-02-16 23:46:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

This is the bunch that protested in the 70's and look what happened then the same will happen now. Liberals corrupt thinking ends justify their means.

2007-02-16 23:44:58 · answer #8 · answered by rdyjoe 4 · 0 2

So why do Bush's generals and the committee he appointed all advise him to get out? We can't win this war and our troops are being sacrificed for nothing. If you feel that strongly, why don't you enlist?

2007-02-16 23:43:14 · answer #9 · answered by notyou311 7 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers