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

Would you prefer we stabilize the country and leave knowing we won
OR
Just get out now and let's not bother with them anymore.

2007-04-04 17:50:12 · 47 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

I do understand the warring factions - WE have gang wars and people killing people here in the US every day but we are for all intents and purposes, a STABLE country...

2007-04-04 18:02:33 · update #1

47 answers

4 Years now and we still have not even brought stability to baghdad... the massive US war machine cant even take a single city.......how on earth can we stabilize the whole country.?

2007-04-04 17:56:11 · answer #1 · answered by Unfrozen Caveman 6 · 12 2

Not really a liberal, just disagree with the huge growth of Gov and spending for the last 6 years. So I don't fall into your"conservative" click.

We can NEVER and I say again NEVER win this war in Iraq. The whole idea has been to setup military bases with which to "stabilize" the Middle-East.Iraq will NEVER be stable as long as we are there. If by some miracle this happens....
We can NEVER leave!

Once again the plan from inception. The Iraqi people would welcome us as liberators and allow us to stay. Didn't work out that way did it?

We should "pull out" now. Allow the 3 factions to form their own governments as they wish to, as it was before the previous occupier (UK) formed one nation of Iraq.

We will however most likely be able to form some sort of alliance with 2/3 of the existing Iraq. Unless they are already tired of the gross mismanagement of this war.

2007-04-04 18:20:15 · answer #2 · answered by Think 1st 7 · 5 0

I believe that the troop surge AND the threat of pulling out of Iraq are having the effect of their government pushing hard to get their act together finally. Also the new general and sec. of defense may be showing some good results. I think Pelosi's visit to Syria was a good move as well. All of these things working together may speed the process for some stabilization in Iraq. That's what everybody wants.

But if there is no progress in a year or a year and a half, I'm for leaving. Not on a set date but over time. These people have been fighting for eons and its possible that no matter how much heart the U.S. has for the fight, if the Iraqi's don't have the heart for it, the money will run out. Its just a fact of life.

2007-04-04 18:08:12 · answer #3 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 3 2

Win what? What exactly are we going to win? Americans have honorably fought and died. Loosing more Americans would be a travesty, we must admit our mistakes and pull or soldiers out of harms way.

We have unjustly attacked and occupied Iraq. Deliberations with the world when we had their support would have avoided all of this. We do not have the guts to admit to the world our error, we still pretend it was inaccurate information on WMDs. Americans are now awake and realize it is not going to fix itself and go away. We have made a horrendous mistake and we must speak up and take responsibility. Our children will pay for this war, I hope they learn more from it then we did.

Will terrorist take over Iraq, or is that the bigger lie to keep us in the fight? Obviously Iraq did not and does not want us to occupy them. We owe them the tools to fight. Our forces main job should be training them in discipline US style boot camps.
Iraq would bravely fight terrorists for stability, we have given them is a taste of freedom, the greatest gift one man can give to another.

Finally we have been hypnotized and the hypnotist is setting us up again. Do not turn your backs. Our billions will only turn into more billions. Our lives will only turn into more lives. We must achieve a logical pull out plan now.

2007-04-04 21:07:03 · answer #4 · answered by GO HILLARY 7 · 2 0

There is no win possible.This was never a real war.The president's father was much wiser in 1991.We are not going to be out of Iraq for many years.We are still in the Phillippines and Guantonamo and have been since 1898!We are in over 120 countries.We live in a country that believes in the gold rule-he who has the gold rules.Billions of $s have been squandered in Iraq.At least that is the way Liberals see it.Conservatives,apparently think of it as an opportunity for fiscal enhancement.So,it is not a question of America's obsession of having a 'True National Champion" as it is of making choices that make sense as opposed to making stupid choices such as invading countries that did'nt like our president's father.

2007-04-04 18:33:34 · answer #5 · answered by R B 3 · 5 0

First, let me say I do NOT classify myself as a Liberal. I do think now that we made that mess over in Iraq, if we leave, we need to leave it like we found it or in better shape.
We need to quit trying to change their culture and beliefs to fit our own. If I call correctly this country was founed on freedom of religion.
If the people of Iraq were SOOOOO unhappy, why didn't they overthrow their own government.
Everyone knows the war is about oil deals being made in Euros potentially causing the collapse of the American dollar. I do not think this is a win or lose situation. We have lost, lost soldiers, lost world respect and support, lost billions of dollars in bad government rebuildin contracts............and have become a nation led by a man claiming to fight terrorism but making America look like a terrorist in the process

2007-04-05 03:33:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

"win"? you're gonna have to define what "winning" would mean in a situation like Iraq. with the downfall of Hussein and the mishandled occupation of Iraq it's become Iraqis killing Iraqis. our troops aren't fighting terrorists ... they're stuck in the middle of a civil war so what do you mean by "win"?

"win" meaning USA topples a nasty dictator and allows for a purple finger democratic election? done and done.

or "win" like our troops stay in Iraq indefinitely while the Shiites and the Sunnis rip each other to shreds seeking revenge and grabbing for power in the vacuum left by the ouster of Saddam?

get past the Limbaugh and Hannity talking points and ask yourself (taking all the complicated factions into account) what "winning in Iraq" would look like. then ask yourself if that vision is even possible and how much more you're willing to spend in blood and treasure to continue GW's experiment in nation building. THEN ask yourself what all this has to do with 9/11.

2007-04-04 18:04:57 · answer #7 · answered by nebtet 6 · 7 0

I trust you. every physique who says Iraq does not have something to do with 9/11 is incorrect. Ann Coulter pronounced, "no longer all muslims may be terrorists, yet all terrorists are muslims." additionally, whether going into Iraq replaced right into a foul theory, the only reason the Iraqis are rebelling is as a results of the fact we did no longer commit sufficient troops to construct regulation and order. We created anarchy in Iraq, however the congress desperate they does no longer enable us to reconstruct it. it is our accountability to repair that which we've destroyed. additionally, they are asserting that they are protesting Iraq to "keep our troops," yet of course congress has no longer prevalent this because of the fact they'll in basic terms supply the troops materials which includes foodstuff if Bush supplies in to their irrational demands (which i think can rightly be called conserving the troops hostage). i think of that if we don't help construct Iraq, we are irresponsible. If we flow away Iraq 2 issues would desire to take place, a fascist Sunni or Shi'ite will take over, killing or oppressing the choice sect for all the violence of the final 4 years, and then turn their eye to usa for vengeance. Or, Iran would desire to take over Iraq, which may be merely as undesirable. the two way, it could create a shelter for terrorists. whether, terrorists is additionally risk-free to understand that they have shelter interior the united states, they merely would desire to get to Air usa radio station!

2016-11-07 06:29:31 · answer #8 · answered by watt 4 · 0 0

Define Win?
The present government is run by a coalition which is powerless without Muqtada al Sadr.
So, if we stop all the fighting and leave, the next day Hizb Allah and the Iranians will be leading the Victory parade

So how do you WIN?

2007-04-04 18:04:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

well... can we stabilize it... that's the question...

and what makes you think we can?

I would prefer to stabilize it, if I thought it was possible...

but it seems less and less likely...

the surge seems to have an effect on Baghdad... but from what I've heard, violence has went up in the rest of the sunni triangle, they've just moved the terrorists...

I mean we've been there 4 years... and little progress overall... is it a civil war or is bush just that incompetent at leading others?

2007-04-04 18:00:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 7 0

Unfortunately, we are in a no-win position. The Maliki government is a complete disaster. They condone torture, and are in the hip-pocket of Iran. Fighting to keep such a government in power is not "winning". The reality is, having the Sunnis in charge of Iraq effectively checkmated Iran. But Bush, completely ignorant of the history of the Sunni/Shiite schism, has basically made Iran the most powerful country in the region by giving them an ally in Iraq instead of an enemy. So please, spare us the simple-minded lectures about "winning"....

2007-04-04 18:00:14 · answer #11 · answered by truth be told 3 · 7 0

fedest.com, questions and answers