English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

14 answers

Yes, and no. I mean it shouldn't be 2008. I mean give it till 2012. I mean you always have to plan for the worse, and be ready. Another war. Insurgents take over so much. Or our boys, and girls fight back with the Iraq's, and bring freedom to Iraq. An they create there own government. But long story short. Give our boys, and girls sometime; but always plan for everything.

2007-03-29 14:10:59 · answer #1 · answered by yep8778 1 · 0 0

Yes we should have a time table for the with drawl of troops from Iraq. This way the terrorists would know exactly when to strike and take over Iraq and use it as a base to launch more attacks against American civilians. We really shouldn't stay there till the problem is resolved because it is just not the business of the American government and our military to try and prevent the destruction of our country. Their only purpose is to inform our enemies of our actions in advance so they can plan accordingly. Yes, this is exactly what we should do.
We should also give thought to helping Iran develop nuclear weapons. Just because the have said repeatedly that they plan to use them against us is no reason to believe they will. Take that you stupid conservatives!!!

2007-03-29 14:18:28 · answer #2 · answered by bill j 6 · 0 0

I agree, yet we can't carry off that civil conflict between the three factions perpetually. The occupation is costing approximately $10 billion according to month, is largely financed by borrowing (deficit spending) and is unsustainable over the long term till the Iraqi govt ponies up that $10 billion according to month. in my opinion, i've got faith the U. S. needs to contain the different center jap countries in assisting to grant protection in Iraq. removing Saddam replaced right into a accepted blunders in judgement. He replaced into the only individual keeping the Iranians at bay. i've got faith that Iraq (in some unspecified time interior the destiny) will dissolve right into a larger Iran = Persia.

2016-11-24 22:38:21 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Yes, I think there should be a timetable, as good as it will do. He hasn't had enough of sending our young people to their deaths. We got NO business being there at all. The man we should be mad at for knocking down the trade tower's and killing thousands of innocent , should be his his concern. These people don't know what to do with their new found freedom.
This is Viet Nam all over again, only with alot more fatalities. Someone should make our preident take an I.Q. test!

2007-03-29 14:11:41 · answer #4 · answered by cprucka 4 · 0 0

Since there is no other measurable objective or finish line that can be drawn, yes.

Iraq is a unilateral occupation. And without a time-table, it is open-ended and indefinite. Bush won't say when he plans to be done, except to say that the troops will remain there as long as he's in office. Since there is no measurable objective, there is no ending point other than what Congress sets.

And Congress has both constitutional and stuatutory authority to do exactly what they're doing. Not to mention the support of the vast majority (roughly 70%) of Americans.

2007-03-29 14:08:19 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1 2

since the US never found evidences of weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, which they made claim as one big reason for going to war, they should just eat their pride and just pull out their presence in Iraq immediately. But then so much damage and death has already being done, so how do you even imagine to repair such damage done to a country ? In this aspect I don't really see the U.N. doing its role in exerting its power in promoting world peace.

2007-03-29 14:17:30 · answer #6 · answered by oki doki 2 · 0 1

To set a particular date is to assign to history the date when America lost the war. If we want to see our nation go on into the toilet, all we need to do is to sit back and continue to allow the politicians to micro-manage every threat that comes our way. It seems that they are so very experienced in fighting one another they now believe that they are masters in conflict management.

2007-03-29 14:12:12 · answer #7 · answered by Dr. J 3 · 1 1

i think that specific goals or objectives must be set within a reasonable time frame......

this way we can add some accountability to
1. Bush's performance
2. Bush's war plan or lack of....
3. Profits going to independent contractors....eeeerrrr halliburton
4. Our generals
5. The new Iraq war policy

2007-03-29 14:09:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

No, to set a date as Congress wants is to say to the terriorists, Wait until we leave and you can have your way.
Guess what, they will follow us home.

2007-03-29 15:14:16 · answer #9 · answered by hisemiester 3 · 0 0

No Way
we need to take however long it takes to get the job done
if it takes 30 years so be it

2007-03-29 14:15:01 · answer #10 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers