It has been more then 4 years. It takes 5 month to train US troops, we could have trained all the Iraqis in the world. There is no military solution for this, only political. (or build a big wall between them ; e.g. split the country in three - but it would not be Iraq anymore , would it? )
2007-04-23 12:59:45 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
bunch of we should not have done it (which I agree with)
and ONE from cp_scipiom ... hmmm first of all Serbs were not driven from it (it was not the goal) , but I get your point you want to drive 6-7 million citizens out of Iraq? So what is in your mind a "pretty soon" ?
2007-04-23 13:35:05 · update #1
iraq is trying to stand up but Bush is slowing them down for he is planning a main invasion of iran and iraq to have control of all the oil to bring down the gas price or to bring them up
2007-04-23 13:06:12 · answer #1 · answered by Sword Lord22 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It takes 5 months to go through basic training. Training a soldier for real combat takes a bit longer- which is why professional soldiers are much better than draftees (who serve 1-2 years)
Also, bear in mind that the basics (like the respect of law and order, obeidience to superiors, etc) are already pre-learned in the US. Not so in the case of iraquis. Many of their recruits have not only no high school degrees, but have reading problems
As to the "solution"- the Sunni population has been steadily driven out of their "zones"- which seriously reduces terrorist play ground area. If the terrorist attacks continue, pretty soon there won't be any Sunnis left in Iraq. Would it still be Iraq? maybe not- but somehow no one seemed to mind when the Serbs were driven out of Kosovo or Kraina. If it did not matter in "Clinton's wars" should it matter now?
2007-04-23 13:22:03 · answer #2 · answered by cp_scipiom 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They have no hope in hell over ever standing up for us to stand down UNLESS we light a fire under their collective a*ses and set deadlines and benchmarks they MUST meet. Enough already! Al Maliki stopped the US troops from going after Al Sadr's militia, the Iraq govt has done absolutely nothing on oil revenue sharing, planning June provincial elections, political reconciliation, militia control, full army control. All they do is sit on their butts while our soldiers continue to take the hits. If they don' t want to make progress, screw 'em le'ts leave and let them sort it out.
2007-04-23 13:04:38 · answer #3 · answered by thequeenreigns 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
It is time for us to go home. We have no business in Iraq. We never did. Where are the WMD ? We are right in the middle of a civil war that we started. Give the White House enough money to bring home our troops and equipment.
2007-04-23 13:07:25 · answer #4 · answered by Michael R 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋
basically we screwed the country over...the govt claimed that iraq wanted our presence yet the iraqis openly want us out...we helped them get rid of saddam hussein but we have not figured out how to rebuild their govt...u cant just turn it into a democracy after such a long period time of dictatorship, especially with so much opposition...so we need to pull out but then again it could be said that its not fair to leave the country in ruins after we went in to "help them" maybe its time for the US to stop tryin to spead democracy...and we poured so much money into Iraq with no success when those billions could be helpful for funding programs here since the US is far from perfect....u cant split up the country like that so pretty much US has the impossible task of figuring out how to unite Iraq and establish a successful govt after ruining the country
2007-04-23 13:05:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anastasia F 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Freedom can only be won by those willing to fight and die for what they want. That is fact. The Iraqis hate Democracy, they always have and always will. Iraq is in civil war now. We need to end this occupation before one more American dies in Iraq..
Not one more should die for what they don't want and will not fight for. Over 450,000 civilians are dead in Iraq and 250,000 fled Iraq to Jordan to avoid civil war.
2007-04-23 13:07:45 · answer #6 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I merely he and Hillary would come sparkling so this element would desire to be resolved. he's hurting Democrats up for re-election in 2014 by utilising not asserting what he replaced into doing. on the grounds that while does he pay attention to speaking factors. this concepts ought to have come directly to him. think of getting Osama by utilising finding at speaking factors. The president ought to be the 1st to correctly known. He ought to have been conscious and apprised of the full concern. remember the Hillary Clinton advert with the telephone ringing at 3 AM. this occasion jogs my memory that she replaced into spot on together with her marketing campaign advert in 2008.
2016-11-26 23:49:01 · answer #7 · answered by mimnaugh 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We shouldn't have been there in the first place. It's another Vietnam, and I've been saying that from the beginning, before everyone else.
2007-04-23 13:04:32 · answer #8 · answered by shermynewstart 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋