We want our troops home because some of us feel we don't need to be over there. Its their country and if they want to have a war, let them have a war alone. We love our family members and are tired of seeing them killed off. Ive seen way too many killed, and even more so scarred by what they've seen, they'll never recover. We just don't need to be over there. Period. We should have a war on poverty or on homelessness, IN OUR OWN COUNTRY.
2007-04-14 08:26:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by velvetkiss2004 2
·
3⤊
3⤋
So many people, so few brains and educated opinions. Most people seem to be caught up in the emotional and are not capable of THINKING or seeing the BIG PICTURE.
I am a combat vet. Now retired. I love watching the news -- as many different news sources as I can.
I will admit, this is a war we should never have been sucked into, but for reasons most don't seem to comprehend. This war SHOULD have been a U.N. mission. But, the U.N. is too corrupt and if anyone were to take a moment and look to see who is on the "Security Council" it would become all too clear just why we ARE there. Now that we are there, I say, let's finish the job.
So, how do we bring this thing to a successful conclusion? We begin by making sure our elected representatives understand exactly what their job is and is not. The Speaker of The House and an assortment of Senators (John Kerry of Mass. and Bill Nelson of Florida to name a few) are not the Secretary of State and therefore, have no business going to Syria -- a country that is off limits to all U.S. Civilian personnel, and trying to negotiate a "peace" with a "President" that is known for exporting terrorism. Did they not study history in school? Have they never heard of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain? Having cleared that small hurdle, maybe we could then get on to making clear our intentions to Iran and Syria-- via our designated and Presidentially appointed Secretary of State
It is clear that negotiating with these two countries is going to be a waste of time, still, we must make the effort.
We need to either wash our hands of the U.N. or get it to grow a spine (and a brain) and shitcan most of the members of the Security Council. If the U.N. and Secretary General Ban are serious, they will clean house immediately and then address those two hawkish nations. Otherwise, a clear and definitive "No Fly Zone" and blockade should be imposed. If starving them into a serious attitude adjustment doesn't work,then I say we secure the borders with orders to kill anyone regardless of "Diplomatic Immunity" status found crossing said border And, if that means more troops, then so be it.. It's simple really. If your garden hose is flooding your yard, you shut it off at the faucet. And so too we should with Iran and Syria. The sooner we get this done, the sooner our troops can come home. AND as a side note, we shoud send the freaking bill to the U.N.. It was their stinking job in the first place!
2007-04-14 09:05:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by Doc 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Both sides have valid arguments. Point is:
We can't leave now. First of all because WE caused
that mess. If we leave now and Iraq turns into a terrorists
eldorado we lose the last bit of credibility we have left.
We're basically doomed to finish Iraq as a success.
But this is going to cost money. More money than we
should spend. And more troops. Much more troops
than we can spend. But we won't get either unless
we start to cooperate. The goverment basically hit
everyone on the forehead with this and now that we
do actually need them we have some "communication
issues" with it.
Probably not the worst time to admit that we were
wrong and that we're pretty much stuck with Iraq.
So if anyone has anything productive to suggest
this would be a pretty decent time to do so.
2007-04-14 08:49:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by Alex S 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
I don't have enough stars on my collar or the blue suit tie to know what's really going on with this war and if it is worth it or not to pull out.
Is it because of oil, money, or land? Is it to stop or minimize future terrorists attacks(I would highly assume)? Perhaps pulling troops/marines/airmen/navymen will be a more volatile consequence. Or maybe not? Can we really rely on past history events and wars to better understand this generation of war? Perhaps. Are we really fighting for a real cause, or a obilivious state of whopping nonsense?
Here is my opinion... I say, if we pull out, the Al-queda and Taliban will have the thought of winning this war. Hence, physcological warfare. We cannot give this up at NO cost. Millions have been spent on this war.
I honestly don't know and don't have pure proof or facts on if this war is actually legit. However, I will continue to follow orders for what I have signed for... Only time will tell...
Disclaimer: (the following may or may not be true. Acknowledge at your own will!!!!!.)
They are uneducated. Unstructured. Loss in the sauce. They need schools. Law in order of some sort. The Taliban in early childhood are taught to hate america. Even worse, there beliefs to killer another troop by suicidal and reuniting with allah and there family members is just plain ridiculous to me. There goes future suicidal bombers and I.E.D. makers and R.P.G. handlers in the making. How sad right? They are an enemy that we cannot see. They get to draw first blood in attacks, then we respond. Conveys are like strolling ducks waiting to get ambushed and pounced on. An enemy we cannot see... Pretty decieving isn't it? Kinda like a magic trick wondering how it was done but a magic trick that kills.... Trying to deplete are funds and resources on this war.... We cannot give up at NO cost... Being over there is a stepping stone to winning this war in my opinion. This is America and we must continue to defend it.
2007-04-14 09:24:42
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jimmy 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
But I desire you detect Maliki's gov is Shiite dominant gov. And Iran is Shiite. Shiites do not love to combat each and every different. Non of neighboring nations wish to get worried straight in Iraq. Shiite acquaintances funnel cash and guns to Shiites in Iraq and Sunni acquaintances do the identical. You may not see neighboring nations stroll into Iraq. With exception of Turkey maybe who're mad at Kurds on Northern Iraq. But that is separate predicament. Iraq acquaintances Sunni and Shiite nations. Non of them wish to look chaos in Iraq that might supply Shiite or Sunnis whole manage of Iraq. The troops may not be out for decades. There shall be a few essential withdrawal commencing subsequent 12 months. But we're going to nonetheless have ~50000+ troops there. Even in the event that they come to a decision to head with whole withdrawal no person can say for definite what is going to occur. It's very unpredictable vicinity. There's rather no longer too many that advise whole on the spot withdrawal. Many ask for extra political stress on Iraqi gov in conjuction with sluggish pull out.
2016-09-05 13:11:12
·
answer #5
·
answered by cherida 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I do not believe for a second that "everyone" wants to pull out without victory, in fact I believe the majority of AMericans wants congress to quit screwing around playing God, and give our people help and money, leave them alone to accomplish the mission.
I believe the people over there want to come back in one piece as their friends and families do, but they want to win, they want mission accomplished, a check mark in the win column.
I am really sick of the socialists berating our troops, trying to do everything they can to get us to lose, I am really tired of people not listening tothe troops and only spewing hate and propaganda.
Quit talking about it like you know something, ask those who are there and who have been. You do know they get Yahoo over there, and there are guys on these boards that are there now, ask them for their opinion.....I really think they deserve a chance to speak their minds.......after all we let the commies over hear try to tear down our country daily.
"One of the most horrible features of war is that all the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting....The people who wrote pamphlets against us and vilified us in the newspapers all remained safe at home.....all these were done, as usual, by people who were not fighting and who in many cases would have run a hundred miles sooner than fight." - George Orwell
2007-04-14 08:43:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by rmagedon 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Yesterday, when I went to the Defac for lunch, I happened to sit down by a young Marine, a sergeant, and as we were eating, we started a conversation. Nothing really unusual about that, it happens every day. This conversation was somewhat different, he told me he had been in for 8 years, and this was his forth tour to Iraq. I said that that was a lot of time, and he told me that after the first time, he has kept requesting transfers to other units that were due to rotate in, because he wants to see the job done. He was somewhat angry at all of the political crap going on back there about "redeployment" out of Iraq. His father was a Viet Nam Vet, and he has heard all of the stories of the mess that was made after we pulled out of there before we finished the job. That is not a legacy that he want's to see in his own life. His father knew that we had won in nam, but the impression of the American people is that we lost, and he also knows that we are winning here, and a pullout would make it into a loss. He has lost several friends here, and don't want to see it all end with thier lives being wasted, not spent on a good cause. Please continue to pray for this young man, and all of his friends, that they may make a difference. Also continue to exert political pressure on those we elected to allow these men finish thier mission. The biggest asset that you can apply to help the troops is your vote, use it wisely.
Not everyone wants to pull out of Iraq before the battle is won. This is a story sent to me by my brother who works in Iraq very closely with the military. I think it speaks for itself.
2007-04-14 08:31:09
·
answer #7
·
answered by Country girl 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Those who want the war to end and the troops to come home are defeatists. The same type of defeatists who cost us Vietnam. Majority of people don't know that the Democrats cut the war funding(like they are doing now). They say they want their troops home but at the same time support them (like they are now). Once the Armed Forces was strangled of funds and support (like it is happening now) they had to retreat. Democrats call it re-deployment, but that is a defeatist way of saying cut and run. Another point many don't know is the fact that after we left Saigon, millions of 'American symathizers' were murdered, displaced and tortured. Jane Fonda said it best when she was asked why she is supporting another American loss, even after the repercussions from Vietnam with all those civilians executed, and she said it was the military's fault in the first place.
Liberals want everyone to live their own way, and that is fine. But when America is attacked or put in danger, we need to defend her. Democrats want America to be destroyed. Like in the early 1970's, they are getting their way again.
2007-04-14 08:31:39
·
answer #8
·
answered by seanpatrick77 2
·
4⤊
1⤋
We should already have left iraq, we should have gone in MUCH stronger we invaded with a mere fraction of the troops we waged the first gulf war with and we weren't even fighting aginst fundamentalists we were fighting a despised government the oinly hope is to imediatly send every troop we have or to withdraw this is pathetic we cant defeat a third world country just step it up people we shouldn't have come here in the first place we should be preparing to fight our true enemies CHINA NORTH KOREA IRAN, SYRYA, LEBANON and fight to liberate DAFUR.
2007-04-14 08:28:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by DV freak 69 1
·
2⤊
2⤋
so far Iraq citizens are now unified and just not ready to abide in a just and lasting peace. Primarily I fel we are just weakening our homeland defenses wasting Money we could use to better care for our own countrymen and mostly to stop the killing of all our young men.
2007-04-14 11:28:03
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋