If the terrorists will follow us home when we leave, does that mean we can never leave? or is there a goal in mind that will get rid of terrorists and make us safe? What would that goal be?
2007-03-07 06:14:39 · 26 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
HC, you still responded to me. lol
2007-03-07 06:24:14 · update #1
Your question goes to the heart of the matter. Do we really believe there's a winning or losing to this thing? Not likely. The Irish Catholics and Protestants are still going at it even today. Did we "lose" anything when we left Vietnam? I say let the terrorists fight us here on our home ground. Bring the soldiers back to the USA and we'll fight them altogether. I don't think we should let US soldiers die if we're not prepared to do our part in this war on terrorism. The administration has had 5 years in Iraq. Longer than World War II lasted. How many Billions of dollars do we owe Iraq? If we really had to "win" a war, we'd do what we did in World War II.
2007-03-07 06:24:06 · answer #1 · answered by bobweb 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
"Republicans think" is an oxymoron, like jumbo shrimp- an impossibility.
But don't get me started. It is the "same difference" with Democrats or anybody in "government organization" who has a plan to develop a "work force" to take "Congressional action"! :)
On a serious note: Since this type of decision is likely to be critically important, affecting the future welfare of millions of people, wouldn't it be a good idea to stop "taking it on faith", that it is better to fight the terrorist there than here.
Who says that is a true statement? Maybe it is, but nobody seems to want to evaluate the rationale behind that belief? Is this the consensus of opinion of experts? I haven't heard from any experts on this topic. Do we have any input from social scientists? Is there a plausible explanation that leads us to believe that this is likely??? If so, what is it? I have heard nothing but cliches and sound bites! Why are we satisfied with that? Why do we give so much creedence to what our leaders say, as if they are somehow imbued with a divine understanding. We were told that we had to fight in Vietnam because of the Domino theory- if Vietnam fell within a few short years all of South East Asia, then the world would fall to communism.
We bought it and are still living with the pain and suffering that caused.
When do we stop supporting leaders that make us feel better by giving us fantasy resolutions to all our problems. Life is not a TV show no matter how much we wish it were. It is time to grow up and start thinking, start learning.
2007-03-07 06:28:17 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I guess they waiting until the Oil runs out. :-)
I doubt we will ever eliminate terrorists, unless they decide to work with society and not against. But, I guess they have their reasons. I think I did read where there is a projected goal to remove world support once there is an established self government and military to back it up. Then I guess everyone come home and they try and take care of their own business.
2007-03-07 06:21:20 · answer #3 · answered by Snaglefritz 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
you won't be able to placed the blame on party politics. i think of their are unknown factors that are to blame for those wars. The French were getting drained of Viet Nam and the u . s . very actual got here alongside to snatch the baton. that would not sound like party politics. As for the democrats having a mandate, it isn't from the familiar public yet of their own making. A mandate is an overpowering majority helping an argument. Bush is having an identical issue. His polls are way down yet nonetheless treats the Iraq conflict like a mandate. besides the undeniable fact that each now and then there are risks the familiar public isn't attentive to. yet we could no longer aspect hands and blame human beings to even the score.
2016-12-05 09:14:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with the people who say we are not leaving. What's worse is this will generate endless hate and violence. No Iraqi wants to be systemized and catagorized by our instilled ideas of democracy. We'll be there forever and republicans will keep scratching their heads wonderring why the plan isn't working. I think Republicans imagine victory as a landscape dotted with McDonalds and Wal-Mart. After all, who is expecting peace? Normal over there includes fighting. Ten thousand years people have been fighting over their ideals, paying with their lives. Lots of people. Now we step in as Richard the Lionheart did, showing them how to live free and happy. "You can do it your own way, if it's done just how I say."
2007-03-07 06:53:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The President's plan indicates to start pulling out troops by November of 2008. That's the goal.
2007-03-07 06:18:03 · answer #6 · answered by JudiBug 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The goal has aways been stated:
To achieve a stable and free Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself and be an Alli in the war on terror.
Cheers :-)
2007-03-07 06:22:44 · answer #7 · answered by Captain Jack ® 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Ant republican or democrat that thinks we can leave now is plain old wrong. We are there and will not leave the mid east. Check Germany. Check Japan.
2007-03-07 06:18:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
The Iraqi quasi-goal may be attained, temporarily, but the Arabs are incorrigible and infinite. Better you ask 'how high is up?'. Infinite! You write the epilogue.
2007-03-07 06:57:19 · answer #9 · answered by Rhinorm 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'd say we'll be leaving Iraq beginning early next year, just in time for the elections.
2007-03-07 06:21:18 · answer #10 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋