I need help for a public speech ur opinion is wanted!!!!!!!!!!!.... Deals with War on Iraq?

Question

How do you feel the war on Iraq should be treated? Should we exit in less than 5 yrs, 10 yrs or an immediate pull out. Should we stay indefinitely? How should we deal with the car bomb/death rates? Anything extra is welcomed Thank you in advance!!!!

EVERYTHING is helpful and i just want to run this past you... if car bombs do not stop they will be stripped of their car driving privileges

There were too many good answers so i will let you decide on the voting

Answer 1

oh no, wow, overwhelming response huh? looks like noone wants to touch this one because you haven't made your political slant clear, and here it's all about the slant.

well i am not from the US so i won't bore you with anything political, just my opinion.

I was against the war, and am highly critical of so much of it. but it would be monstrous for us to pull out (australia is there too) at this stage after we caused the power vacuum and resulting chaos. so immediate withdrawal is ethically wrong, regardless of economics and prestige. there are a lot of people who love iraq as their home nation as deeply as we love our homes, and they have a right to see some of the damage done right.

basic services, health, power, water, education... they should be an absolute priority. this will take care of a lot of the civil animosity toward the troops.

of course this infrastructure can't be built in an atmosphere of violence, so these areas must have a concentration of forces keeping neighbourhoods under control.

the forces stationed there must be more benevolent. so much damage has been done that i fear it will already take a long time for the iraqis to trust us all again, but it is never too late to start trying. there are some good programs where the coalition troops give rations to good, strong local leaders to hand to the people. this makes the people happy and strengthens the ability of these community leaders to influence the neighbourhood. use what's left of their social capital and infrastructure to reach our goals instead of having two distinct methods...our way or the highway. hearts and minds was an original endeavour but has failed greatly with US forces. British and Australian forces have been more succesful and have support of the communities they secure.

so, infrastructure double speed, strengthen local leaders, and back off with arbitrary violence, and the job will be easier. make sure the army and police are strong but not overtly seen to be american puppets, and then we creep out in increments. years, but it depends on progress.

uuhh yeah, i took so long writing that that everyone HAD jumped in, good stuff. good answers too.

Answer 2

I think you should never start a war unless you are virtually certain that you can win it, and secondly, do not enter a war unless you have beforehand already an exit strategy. It is clear that you are invincible when you decide to engage only in wars of which you are 100 % certain that you win. This was the stratagem of Colin Powell.
So one needs support of all the neighboring countries for a political solution to the present situation in Iraq. No neighboring country can be interested in a continued violence which might spill over across the Iraqi borders, which will definitely happen, after an American and British withdrawal.

Answer 3

I think we should have withdrawn as soon as the war was won--that is, after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the holding of the first elections. Now we've got a civil war on our hands, one which places us in an impossible situation. Naturally, I support our troops, and think they should be given the tools they need to do their job (hear that, Dem-bulbs?), but the time is drawing near when we should start removing our men and women from Iraq, and let the citizenry there handle their own affairs.

I'll go a little further. I think we will withdraw fairly soon--probably after the next election, no matter who is elected President. Afterwards, the government of Iraq will last for a short while, but will ultimately fall apart, and the country will divide, hopefully peacefully but probably with some violence, into separate ethnic states.

I won't set a timetable on this, but I think that will be the outcome.

Answer 4

I think we should pull out when the job is done. What benefit is there in an arbitrary timetable based on dissatisfaction with the war? When has a population ever been happy that their country is in a war? NEVER! But wars are not won by the people at home, they're won by the people on the field, and if they leave before the job is done, all the sacrifices they made for us are in vain.

Indefinitely? Hell no, that's as bad as an arbitrary timetable. A timetable should be based on goals being reached and have a definite ending, even if not defined as a certain date.

I don't know how to deal with the suicide bombings, that is the ugly mess that needs to be straightened out. Although this troop surge seems to be making a difference...

Answer 5

We never should have went to begin with. You can't force your own method of government onto another culture. It is not working, if it were, I suspect the idea of pulling out wouldn' t be such a hot debate. How long until democracy is entirely accepted? The government we have established over there is flimsy at best. The only thing holding it together is us. I suppose we have to stay, now. After all, we can't just leave, can we? That would make every person who wholeheartedly supported this war look like a bunch of fickle morons who were caught up in the moment. I am not a republican, or a democrat; a liberal or a conservative. I don't deal in self-deception. I am an intellectual and provacateur. I am sure I will get flamed for my comments, but I don't care. Almost every person I encounter has one of a half-dozen popular views on this war. It's stupid. Can anyone see how stupid the war was to begin with? I am not talking about morality, that is a separate issue. I am talking about stupidity. Can anyone say with any measure of confidance that we are any safer from terrorism now than we were pre-September 11th as a result of the war?
Homeland Security played a more vital role in our "Defense" than did the invasion of another country, the cold-shoulder to the United Nations, and the assimilation of Iraq's government. Do you really think we are better off? Do you think that the Iraqis are better off? Look at the mortality rates before we invaded to the current ones, and tell me so. Do you think that we have less enemies now, or more? Do you think, really think, in your blind support of the Bush Administration, that "The War on Terror" does procure profits? The Bush Administration does not have to conform to what you may have heard in your civics class. They can profit all they want, regardless of what anyone thinks. As for the democrats, they are interested only in pulling out, meaning the entire time spent there would be wasted, as we would essentially be leaving the country worse off than before we invaded it. But, there is a good point into the democrats thinking: fish or cut bait. After all, we do have to leave at some point, unless we are just going to start going 'Roman' and taking things over for ourselves.
We should leave, but then again, we never should have went.

Answer 6

Iraq had a standing government before Saddam took the throne and executed all of his perceived political rivals. Most middle eastern governments ushered theirselves into power through military takeovers. So if we stay 2 years or 50 years the minute we leave their will be someone waiting in the shadows to rise up and take control. If democracy is to take hold in Iraq it will rely on Iraqi citizens taking a stand to protect their government. We cannot force our system on a country that doesn't want it. We should train their military and help them build a police presence in their cities, and then step away. It will be up to them what they will do next. The reason why so many foreigners have contempt for America is directly tied to our government playing politics in other countries. At some point Iraq must stand on it's own. And after five years Bush has had his chance to make that happen. But he chose to push SS reform and ignore the war, and now we are where we are.

Just my opinion of course, I hope I helped some.

Answer 7

The longer we stay, the less good we are doing. Iraq needs to learn to take care of itself and as long as the U.S sticks around they wont have to. It's been 4 years and if things havent gotten better by now, they probably wont any time soon. We are depriving our troops from thier families and they need to start withdrawing.
As far as car bombs go- no one should be allowed to drive in the cities where there are thousands of potential targets for these creeps.

Answer 8

I think that we need to stay as long as possible. The threat of Iran is very real, and Iraq would be a good jumping off point for dealing with them. I think that stability in Iraq could be acquired sooner if we would get rid of the guns, and the explosives in that country. Also, we need to close the borders with Iraq and Iran, where most of the insurgents are getting their weapons.

Answer 9

an exellent speach would be pointing out the difference in opinions , take the most extreme left views (sean penn) and compare them to the extreme right views ( sean hannity) , then discuss the effects these people are making on society , after that you would get peoples attention then you can discuss your views on the war . you could call it " the war on the war" , that would be an interesting speach .

Answer 10

I think we should get out of there as soon as possible. The longer we stay there the uglier things will get. The war is lost anyway. Troops shouldn't have to be there anymore. About Bush wanting to send more troops there is just stupid