After all, the Irish waited out the Brits for 750 years without a timetable, the Spaniards waited out the Callifate of Fez for 700 years without a timetable and India waited out two occupations (Mogul & British) for more than 1100 years without a timetable. There is not one instance in world history where that contention holds water.
2007-04-18 09:39:23 · 12 answers · asked by egg_zaktly 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
yes, Bush's plan is to never leave, just keep tossing young soldiers into the Iraqi meat grinder. If we never leave then they can't wait us out.
2007-04-18 09:45:25 · answer #1 · answered by Alan S 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I really hate all this "timetable" crap. The only acceptable timetable is now, before anyone else dies, Iraqi or American. If the terrorists "wait it out," great, we'll be gone and no more needless killing will be done of or by American soldiers for a perceived "noble cause." When Vietnam happened, everyone said, "Communism will take over the world if we leave," and then we left, and last time I checked, communism has not taken over the world. It's time for the other 30% of Americans to accept that Bush and his cronies lied to them, and for our legislators to take a stand against him.
2007-04-18 09:52:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
First they don't seem to be waiting out anything. Secondly if you subscribe to the theory that they are going to wait it out than they will "wait it out" for 6 months? 6 years? If we stay there 6 months will they wait until then? If we are there 6 more years will they wait until then? They will wait a long time.
The people of that region have been settling their differences their way for over 3 thousand years so why should some upstart country come in there thinking they are going to force change that is not wanted? When one goes into an neighborhood where he does not understand the protocal or who is whom etc. he is doomed to failure maybe even death.
2007-04-18 10:05:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nothing about Bush's neocon propaganda holds any water, but the feeble-minded right-wing koolaid drinkers swallow it all hook, line, and sinker.
In fact, setting a timetable would force the Iraqi government to step up to the plate, but Bush is too point-blank stupid to realize that. And Cheney and his PNAC pals have no intention of ever leaving Iraq.
2007-04-18 09:49:25 · answer #4 · answered by qwiff_hunter 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Wars don`t have time lines but occupations do and the Iraq war was over when we took out their old military. Every goal has a time line.
2007-04-18 09:44:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only people who can't imagine fighting to their deaths forever to protect the homeland believe the insurgents/rebels/terrorists will give up any generation soon. That's why chickenhawks should not be allowed to plan wars.
2007-04-18 09:47:34 · answer #6 · answered by Studbolt Slickrock Deux 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, as usual, it is a sound-byte that sounds like it makes sense but has not one shred of evidence or reasoning to make it believable.
It is just a sliver of propaganda which the Bushies can repeat over and over for lack of any other argument.
2007-04-18 09:45:50 · answer #7 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No timetable is needed they aren't going anywhere. They will always be there long after you leave. Whenever you leave. If you stay long enough maybe you will assimilate.
2007-04-18 09:48:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know where people got the idea that there's an army out there somewhere, hiding until the U.S. announces that it's leaving Iraq, but it simply isn't true.
2007-04-18 09:48:11 · answer #9 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
that may or may not be true, as well as a timetable...both are legitimate theories and should be debated in a civilized manner
2007-04-18 09:44:33 · answer #10 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋