2007-04-15 10:58:23 · 24 answers · asked by Blessed 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Didn't President Bush tell us years ago that we won, mission accomplished ?
If George W. Bush is the good and honest man that he wants us to believe then WHY ARE WE STILL IN IRAQ ?
2007-04-15 11:06:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
You can call it whatever the hell you want as long as we bring the troops home! We need to quit wasting time and money and I will add ( And I won't apologize either ) our kids lives! Weather the right wants to believe it or not Iraq is in a civil war and there is not a thing we can do to stop it! They are not being taken over by Iran that is pure bulls***! The fact is that Saudi-Arabia is dumping more money and arms in there than Iran but somehow we never hear about that! Could it be that is because the Saudis are backing our side in this( and I say it again ) civil war? We need to leave now and let them work it out. The Iraq people have been fighting each other for many years and they are the only ones that can settle it! Like us ( the U S A ) they don't always like each other but if they are truly threatened by an outside force they will ( and if you check their history you will find it so ) all become Iraq first ! Bring the troops home now! By the way I am a Nam era vet and a proud American but wrong is wrong and we are wrong to be there!
2007-04-15 18:58:04 · answer #2 · answered by dr.dave 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If getting our troops home safe and well means cutting and running, NO!
Do you not see leaving Iraq now means major problems for us in the future? Do you want to pay $5.00 a gallon or more for gas?
A safe harbour for terrorists? Not to mention, a complete and utter discrace throughout the world.
I would like nothing better then to get the troops home safe and well, of course. But anyone with some intelligence knows we cannot just walk away.
2007-04-15 18:12:05 · answer #3 · answered by rsc3033 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
OK this is going to be hard for you to believe; but there is no Santa.
The Troops in Iraq, will get nothing from Bush. No ride home no vacation to visit friends and family.
Bush will only provide more death and destruction.
Go Team Bush Go
2007-04-15 18:35:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
No, we should keep the definition the same.
In case you liberals don't remember (you seem to ask what it is every day) what the objective in iraq is, i'll tell you:
Allowing the NEWLY ELECTED government of Iraq a chance to defend itself against Iran and syrian financed insurgents. If they are unable to defend themselves, then Iraq will turn into (once again) a terrorist supporting state.
Now, ignore the above, as you have been doing for years, and ask the same question tomorrow, maybe something like, "why are we in iraq", or "war based on lies", and keep circling the same crap over and over, ignoring the answers.
2007-04-15 18:14:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Pullout? Withdraw? Re-deploy? Your troops "volunteered" to serve thier country so you can go to bed and sleep at night without worrying about terrorists, guerillas, and all other enemys coming into your bedroom. Sure its tough, but ask the soldiers if they are wimps like most of the people complaining that they should come home. If thier families can accomodate them being in a war, then people who dont have any emotional ties to the soldiers, should just keep their mouth shut. Winning is the only option unless you are wanting our enemies to win.
2007-04-15 18:09:16 · answer #6 · answered by ob10830 2 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Yes. And if we get our troops home safe and well without accomplishing stability with the new Iraqi government it is currently defined as: "losing". If you want "losing" to be redifined as "winning" as your very clever strategy then go right ahead!
2007-04-15 18:07:52 · answer #7 · answered by oogabooga37 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No. Let's define it as taking complete control (like the libs and their Islamic buddies are accusing us of), getting enough oil out of the country to give each of the dead or wounded servicemen/women's families 10 million each. Then let's suck out the rest of the oil out so we can get gas back down to under $3.00 a gallon and not have to worry about Iran controlling Iraq. That would be my definition of "Winning" LOL, the libs would never let us do that.
2007-04-15 18:12:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
With people like you in WWII, we would not have advanced beyond the beaches of Normandy on D-Day. 2,500 allied soldiers died in the first 24 hours.
Winning the war in Iraq would mean vanquishing all of the insurgents, defeating Al-Qaida, stopping the flow of munitions from Syria and Iran, and having a stable government that can handle their own affairs without our backing.
2007-04-15 18:21:48 · answer #9 · answered by John W 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
a solid plan.
I'm at a loss to understand how people can think they are safer because 130,000 troops are about 8,000 miles away protecting the Iraqi government from civil war while Al Qaeda is growing in numbers and bombing as they please. They bombed the parliament building, and 2 sites in Algeria. seems like it would be better to have our military a little closer to home.
2007-04-15 18:13:04 · answer #10 · answered by Alan S 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋