yes, we do need to get them back, and faily soon. we never should have gone in in the first place, but now that we are, we must finish what we started. we owe it to the irac-ies to stay untill our job is done, and not pull out halfway there. imagine if we did? their country would probobly turn into a full out war, terrorism would rise, more people would be killed.... it would be really horrible. bush needs to step it up, and finish what he satrted instead of sitting on his throne and wondereing what to do. he needs to get more ivolved in irac.
2007-03-28 00:24:40
·
answer #1
·
answered by Alysse 2
·
1⤊
3⤋
I would love for our soldiers to come home just as much as the next person. I have many friends over there, and had a brother over there for a year when it first started.
But we can't pull out now. We started this thing, and we have to finish it. We made such a mess over there, that we have to stay and clean up the mess. If we pull out now, what could that mean for Iraq and the whole Middle East. We leave, and it is once again flooded with the people we are trying to get rid of.
The Middle East will erupt into complete chaos. You think what is happening now is bad...it would get amazingly worse if we left before this fight is over.
And I think the number one thing we need to do right now is not protest the war...but support our troops in every way we can, and treat them as they should be when they get home. This war is beginning to become another Vietnam...not because of the war itself...but because of what is going on at home. We need to think about the soldiers first...and the war last. Our men and women over there are the most important thing.
2007-03-28 01:26:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by kingelessar2 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
What is happening in Iraq at this time goes much deeper than civil conflict. It is a spiritual warfare that involves centuries of conflict between sects of the Islamic religion, Christians and Jews.
While spiritual warfare cannot be fought in the flesh, if the flesh is killed the spirit has no place to stand and fight.
Most of our men and women in uniform understand the situation and are anxious to help the Iraqi people get a handle on their problem which is severely exacerbated by the intervention of tyrannical neighbor nations who don't want a free nation to exist in their midst. Through advances in tactics and equipment our service peoples' injuries and deaths have come way down.
Individual freedoms and self-determination are antithetical to the Mohammedan mindset. It is a seventh century cult and, for the most part, the Islamic religion is stuck there.
But look at what's happened in the north of Iraq, the Kurdish area. They are prospering in a way that exceeds all expectations. It's a source of great hope for the Iraqi nation and those in bondage all over the world. The people of almost every nation on earth want to have what is available to them in the twenty-first century. With Gods help, we're doing our best to help them.
To pull our support from the Iraqi people at this point would be genocidal murder. We, as a nation, really don't want to be guilty of that again. Lets stay a little longer and help them to help themselves. Then stay close by to protect them should they need it.
2007-03-28 02:38:03
·
answer #3
·
answered by CJohn317 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The american senate is already trying to push a bill forward to bring the soldiers home by June or so next year, but I doubt you can just up-and-leave now, after all the damage that has been caused. Leaving now would be worse than not fighting int he first place, and the country would slip into a civil war.
2007-03-28 01:34:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by Lief Tanner 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
I think it is very unwise for America to pull out of anywhere.
Every Single Nation, which hosts American citizens, American Products, or American Currency, MUST have an American presence.
.. Sorry, but if they want a Starbucks in Seoul, or McDonald's in Baghdad, then there's got to be backup..
It's not about God. Nor Abraham & Allah, our soldiers (regardless of their spirituality) are being held responsible for a position, that is ineffective.
There's no argument with that.
"Troops" by definition have become synonymous with death.
It just don't work anymore.
However to even humor the idea that we can keep America safe, by not leaving our shores, is downright delusional.
2007-03-28 00:40:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by MotherNature 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Well Stanley I have been through several of these quests to police the world that our government has talked us into and they all have common characteristics.
They always say that it would be a shame to have those who have died to have died in vain. If this is the best excuse one can come up with then we should get out immediately.
The theory that it is somehow better to have still more people die so that those already dead will not look silly is ridiculous. These are the thoughts of a deranged mind.
In retrospect it always boils down to the exact same thing. Control of resources to assure that the rich get richer and the poor stay that way.
Greed is not worth dying for.
Love and blessings Don
2007-03-28 00:37:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
That's what's going to happen - sooner or later. Unfortunately, it'll almost certainly be later because the current administration in Washington refuses to admit that what's going on in Iraq is a terrible, useless waste of lives.
I was in Vietnam and I've spent 20 years in the Middle East. I know a quagmire when I see one.
Invading Iraq was a major blunder. Not only because
1. There were no WMDs
2. Saddam had NO connection to Osama and the terrorists - in fact, they were deadly enemies.
but also because
1. You can't export democracy (something we should have learned in Vietnam)
2. You can't win in a country where 95% (or more) of the population either very much dislikes you or actively hates you.
3. There is an endless supply of whackos (or insurgents, fanatics, patriots - whatever you want to call them) more than willing to die to get you out of there.
We'll get out eventually - just as we did in Vietnam. And, just as in Vietnam, we'll leave and let the locals sort it out on their own. In the meantime, however, thousands will have been killed or maimed, all for nothing - just as in Vietnam.
2007-03-28 00:30:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by johnslat 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
jesus won't pull the troops out, and neither will bush. the congress could decide to stop funding the war, but that isn't likely, since the troops still have to eat and have some equipment which works and allow them to protect themselves.
bush isn't going to bring anyone home as long as he's in office. he stated that in 2003, and he's going to be in office until 2009 when the next president takes office in january of 2009.
don't expect them to be brought home before then!.
2007-03-28 00:33:04
·
answer #8
·
answered by de bossy one 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
for a great form of those human beings, it particularly is purely one thing to do on the weekends. Their political concepts are no longer o.k. theory out in any respect. Others will in all probability say what I mentioned approximately Bush's spending - i did no longer relatively like the coverage, yet I knew the Democrats could be lots worse (and that they have been). additionally they are going to say that Bush led to the matters and Obama is attempting to handle the hand he grow to be dealt. it particularly is partly actual, yet there is a few excuse-making happening right here besides. Others on the left ARE in actuality complaining, even in spite of the incontrovertible fact that lower back no longer too loudly. between the very few constructive aspects of the Obama presidency, for me a minimum of, is that he seems to choose to artwork to maintain Afghanistan unfastened. i might have favorite McCain on militia matters, yet once I consider Obama's movements I won't say I disagree purely for the sake of trashing him.
2016-10-20 03:02:27
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
We should have some sort of concrete plan to phase down our participation in this, based partly on having the Iraqis take over. By concrete plan, I mean actual and real target dates that this must be completed by. We don't need to announce them to the world in advance.
General George Marshall of WWII fame once said that a democracy cannot fight a war that is more than four or five years in duration.
2007-03-28 01:08:16
·
answer #10
·
answered by the phantom 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Only if we are interested in having more terrorist attacks here. All the should haves and could haves do not change the reality. We are there, we need to stay.
2007-03-28 04:09:25
·
answer #11
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋