their benchmarks?
why is that?
With no predetermined penalities or promises of reaction from The U.S. what motivation does the IRAQI government truly have to solve their own problems?
Additional Details
8 hours ago
Look at every interview every republican has ever done, and when asked what if IRAQ doesnt meet the latest benchmarks....absolutely not one republican will give an answer.
Inmstead they say, lets just give this latest plan a try. Then thy change the subject.
Our troops deserve better then politicians who wil only pass the buck
ANSWER WITH ONLY ACTIONS OR IDEAS FOR NOT REACHING BENCHMARKS. Thats the question, answer it if you can, when no other republican politician will?
2007-02-17 01:03:30 · 9 answers · asked by writersbIock2006 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Thats not an answer SMC -- thats passign the buck. Hey no need for benchmarks, lets just keep gambling and hoping IRAQI's government changes, no matter how long it takes, no matter how much america spends? You need to grow up and think about what that would do to our troops, to our country, why it would be what IRAQ and terrorists want, and why it wouldnt be good for the world's stability!!!
Grow up and next time, give an intelligent thought out answer.
Which is something republicans cant even do
2007-02-17 01:16:20 · update #1
Pretender its better than any answer republican politicans have given. They refuse to give one.
Is this the best republicans can come up with? Thats exactly what I thought
2007-02-17 01:27:10 · update #2
It has been discussed that Iraq should be divided into three countries: an area for Shiites, and area for Sunnis, and an area for Kurds. Somewhat reminiscent of the Bosnia/Serbia.
However, who is to make the divisions? The UN? Representatives from the three tribes?
Also, at some point one or more of the three tribes will want to increase there land area, and start another war. Should the US or UN intervene?
At this time, I do not believe the government of Iraq can be stabilized, without a different plan of action.
And, I do not believe our troops' presence is necessarily helping matters...
2007-02-17 01:41:09 · answer #1 · answered by MenifeeManiac 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think they will find some way to create a mythos about who stabbed Iraq in the back and avoid any and all responsibility.
These Bush supporters who are blindly in favor of this war are a small, and shrinking minority. A person losing at a poker game may have a similar mindset. We have lost so much now that we can't stop playing. Only its playing with other people's lives and money. Call it magical or wishful thinking but this surge is doomed from the outset as far as lasting achievements go.
We have a flawed strategy, a flawed doctrine, and debatable tactics. Ever wonder if some of these people regret the 2003 invasion? I do.
2007-02-17 01:43:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
OK, you pose this question under the assumption that cons have no recourse if things do not turn around in short order after a troop surge. That may be true, but the current thought is to fix the problem by adding these add'l troops. Whether this is good/bad/indifferent-it is a plan. That being said, what plans do liberals have for Iraq when we bring all of the troops home (whether in the next few months or 2 years)? None. No contingency plan at all if Iraq fails. And if we start taking terrorostic hits again, who is to blame?
The bottom line is this..........while Republicans may not have sorted everything out so far, they are at least trying to put some sort of patch on the situation in hopes of improvement. The Dems have done nothing but complain and request for troop withdrawal WITHOUT any contingency plan. Period. End of story.
Your tainted liberal-centric belief system is obvious, which is just another example of a major problem in this country. You are placing blame without providing an alternative yourself. Your question is lame.
2007-02-17 01:45:56 · answer #3 · answered by Beachman 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Simple, if they don't meet the deadlines we're going to have a second invasion. The invading army will consist of anti-Catholic John Edwards, Hanoi John Kerry Fat Teddy Kennedy, Combover Carl Levin, Abscam Crook John Murtha, Nitwit Nancy Pelosi and that ilk. They'll be so annoying that the terrorists will surrender within weeks just to shut the magpie democrats up.
2007-02-17 01:40:41 · answer #4 · answered by ret_rochcop 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They have the motivation of achieving a stable government. United they stand. Divided will be a catastrophe. We have to give Iraq a chance. This is "crunch time." Everyone kind of knows it. Support Our Troops!!!
2007-02-17 01:36:07 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Click on the link below and watch this interview of three former, but now 'tolerant' terrorists. It was conducted on CN8 in New Jersey. You'll get quite the education, as I did. Pretty hard to fathom the money funding them is coming out of the U.S..
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LK07B70&f=PW07B04&t=e
2007-02-17 19:01:38 · answer #6 · answered by chole_24 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
US government does not ought to answer something concerning private guidance. i understand that Bush will do the wonderful element while that factor comes. Why do you no longer ask the comparable of the Democrats? in case you think of Republicans are the sole ones who choose answer. Oh!! i understand why, they're going to misinform you approximately any and each thing, it relatively is the reason.
2016-10-15 12:27:16 · answer #7 · answered by rosen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All right, if IRAQ doesn't meet the benchmarks set we will Nuke them back to the stone age! I'm a Conservative, that's my solution. Happy Now?
2007-02-17 01:24:23 · answer #8 · answered by pretender59321 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why is that?
Easy - When dealing with complicated issues, one must remain flexible.
Grow up.
2007-02-17 01:14:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋