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

many people seem to have the gripe that setting a timeline would be letting the enemy know when to come back.. wait lets think about this.. so they would leave for a while? meaning we could spend more time on training.. have a stronger Iraqi force that would be able to stand up against them when they came back... and on top of that if the Iraqi's couldn't handle it when they came back and asked for our assistance.. we're talking they made real progress ... are doing their jobs.. and honestly asked.. we'd send troops to help..the American populace wouldn't be able to turn a blind eye to that... sounds like a brilliant strategy to give a timeline and make the terrorists slow down for a little while to me.

2007-04-02 09:47:01 · 6 answers · asked by pip 7 in Politics & Government Politics

actually jonep I have no problem with the timeline being classified.. and have posted a question or two about that in the past.. and was attacked by both sides lol

2007-04-02 10:02:56 · update #1

6 answers

Republicans are under the delusional impression that we have driven some enemy out of Iraq that will return once our military leaves.

They don't know (or really care) who this enemy is, they are, however, convinced that it exists.

2007-04-02 09:57:13 · answer #1 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 1 0

Why not have a plan that has a timeline but is not made public. Why do YOU need to know (as well as the enemy). You really think the terrorists would not use this info to their advantage. With announced set date of withdrawal the terrorists may slow down attacks to gather strength and plan the "Coup" of the Iraqi governement shortly after we leave. It would also leave them the lesson for the future that their best weapon against us is not diplomacy but conflict with terror and after a few years we will weary and go away and let them "win". You see the decision we make does not just affect now, but 10, 20, 50+ years in the future.

Is the above possible? You laying odds that it goes the way you describe or the way I describe? What is more costly, you or I being wrong?

2007-04-02 16:59:55 · answer #2 · answered by jonepemberton 3 · 0 0

Pip, giving a time line doesn't mean that they'll stop. It tells he real players in the game when to start. What we have seen in Iraq is not all we are against. Do you think average Joe Blow insurgent went to the store and bought a RPG in hopes that one day he might be able to use it? Don't think so. He is being supplied by someone. Bullets, rockets, and bombs are not cheap. They also do not grow on trees. Someone is funding them contrary to popular belief. It's those someones that cannot wait until we leave, and we are giving the date.

2007-04-02 16:57:29 · answer #3 · answered by mbush40 6 · 1 0

Most of the terrorists and insurgents are from Iraq and intend to stay there. IOW, they're not going anywhere whether they get a timeline from the US or not.

2007-04-02 16:57:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

anyone with a lick of sense can follow that and see the truth in it. Sadly, it escapes Bush's minions.
But I guess when you're on a steady diet of rhetoric cola and propaganda crunchies, thinking for yourself is not an option.

2007-04-02 16:56:17 · answer #5 · answered by Alan S 7 · 1 0

Or better yet we can leave because the carnage will continue for centuries just like it did in the past.

2007-04-02 16:51:25 · answer #6 · answered by Enterrador 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers