I agree that troops need to stay over there ...now ! or Al Queda ( or however you spell it )...will take control of the oil revenues and become stronger ! I want thre troops to come home also , but the Bush admin. made a decision that's going to be an endless mess ! what's your opinion ?
2007-03-25 04:52:59 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
A lot of dead soldiers have reached the point of no return ever. So the phrase is in relation to what?
We need the oil. So what do you want to do? We can only car pool so much. Is more mass transit the answer? Can mass transit be made safer than it is now?
Saddam is dead, Bin Laden is dead, so who's that other guy? He needs to go.
We need to cut back on our need for foreign oil asap. But even if we didn't need a drop, could we have stood by and let Saddam be the ruthless leader of the killers he had working for him...
I'm sure he was greatly surprised when his feet were kicking air, because he thought he would be saved somehow by some of his lunatic fringe friends. well surprise surprise surprise!
Now how did the americans get shed of the british? Oh ya they armed themselves and shot the heck out of them, until it was not a good idea to be british and in the usa. The men in Iraq will have to join up and defend their families and friends. If they don't they will have to deal with ruthless leaders forever.
Should our troups come home? Yes. Now? Yes. I'm thinking what we need is information and air power. Can't we do that without having a lot of our men there? Don't we have aircrafts that can go unmanned into their territory and drop bombs? I'm wondering why we have even one man in that country.
But hey I'm just a simple country woman with apple trees and chickens. So far, my husband was a Prisoner of War, an two of my three son's have been awarded the purple heart. I'm not in favor of any war but somebody has to be ready for the worst. Thanks for letting me vent on this question.. :)
2007-03-25 05:16:30 · answer #1 · answered by ricketyoldbat 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Clearly it was wrong to invade to begin with.
The question is if we leave, will things be
better or worse than if we don't leave, right?
Yes, if we leave, the country will be chaotic and
at least initially a great number of people will die.
However, what if we don't leave today? So far,
nobody has provided any good evidence that this
EVER can be solved with us there. This means
that we bleed for as long as we are there, and then
we leave and we get the chaos and mortality rate
of scenario 1 anyways.
Personally, I think we should approach this in one
of two ways:
1: Leave now and learn not to do that again
2: Put sufficient force in place to do the job right.
This means 300000 at least, and they're going to
be there a long long time. During that time, we'll
be instilling Democractic values and trying to
lesson the effect of the church on politics. To do
this practically, we'll need a draft. We will probably
lose 3 to 10 times the number of American soldiers
we have to date.
Number 2 ain't going to happen, so we're back
to leaving and hoping we learned a lesson.
2007-03-25 04:57:01 · answer #2 · answered by Elana 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As a Marine, with two tours so far and I am looking to go for a third, I am glad that Bush let us do it our way and not the PC way which was getting my troops killed. The SHACKLES ARE OFF THE TROOPS and now things are swaying our way. To bad the media does not like it. Bush's plan is working.
One comment on the Marine Unit sent home to all peace lovers reading this: When the enemy is trying to kill you and is not wearing a uniform, and driving a car bomb into your unit, you must think EVERYONE on the street is a enemy combatant. I am sure it will be on the Internet soon.
2007-03-25 06:54:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
With regards to Iraq... consider this possibility. The U.S. government does not want to leave Iraq. The U.S. government wants to colonize Iraq and controll it to take their oil. IF you would consider this as what the U.S. is trying to do then everything else falls into place such as everything all messed up and no progress made. With Iraq in a constant state of civil war no one in their right mind would say the answer is to leave because then the sunnis and sheeites would be killing each other in the streets.
2007-03-25 05:01:19 · answer #4 · answered by Saint Lucipher 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ah yes, Al Qaeda. We haven't heard about that group and their boogeyman leader recently. Why do you say they'll take control of the oil revenues? And why should anybody go to war for oil revenues?
2007-03-25 05:02:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is getting near, this is the reason we have got to maintain McCain out of the white apartment. I think that the George W. Bush years within the white apartment will pass down in historical past as probably the most worst yrs. lead via one of the most worst presidents!!
2016-09-05 15:22:52 · answer #6 · answered by erlebach 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe we need to JUST LEAVE! There will always be terrorists there. Seems Bush thinks we can get every last one. They have babies and teach them to hate and kill. How can you conquer that? We went in, which was the wrong decision, and now we need to get out and let those people live their lives. This is not a game of 'Risk.'
2007-03-25 05:17:50 · answer #7 · answered by Bud's Girl 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To put it simply...yes we are past the point of no return. Bush is an idiot and he should NOT be our president we shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place, we didn't even find the "weapons of mass destruction" we were supposedly looking for!!!!
2007-03-25 05:08:53 · answer #8 · answered by Emily W 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Al Quada is not in Iraq. They were hiding out and still is hiding out in Afghanistan. Remember that place.
2007-03-25 05:34:40 · answer #9 · answered by chersgaz 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think we are a little past the point now..☺
2007-03-25 08:57:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋