2007-04-25 07:38:03 · 13 answers · asked by John 16 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
It is worse than being a surrender its a total bend over and get reamed by the terrorists. The democrats would rather we lose a war to score political points that is the lowest of the low. During WW2 the Republicans supported the President if though he was a Dem,. now the nation is in the middle of world war three with Iraq as just one theatre of the war and the Democrats want to surrender like cowards and traitors, they think the enemy will just leave us alone if we run away from Iraq? ha get real people.
joshcrime
"The people say when a war ends. The people decide on how to fight a war. The people call the shots" How pathetic, the people just saying lets end a war does not end a war, get it straight joshcrime, the only way you ended a war is you either WIN it or LOSE it, and by running away from it and thinking the people say its over, you LOSE it, thanks very much democrat traitor what the enemy can not do you democrats do to your own nation.
2007-04-25 07:44:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Try as I might I just can't see what winning the war would even look like. We can't be there forever but it seems wrong to set a timetable to get out too. That will give the terrorists too much time to plot their complete takeover, but maybe that doesn't matter because it seems inevitable. I feel the war in Iraq has been a big mistake and our efforts would have made more sense in finding Bin Laden back then, now he's got a huge army and it will be impossible to stop terrorists altogether. I feel so bad for the Iraqi people having there country destroyed and what will become of it when this is over. And their children growing up like this. Sad to say but it looks like Saddam as awful as he was was actually keeping the peace in that region. Whenever we leave we will be surrendering as there is no way to win for us or the Iraqi people. Even if we leave when it appears the new government can govern, they will quickly be invaded again by Iran.
2007-04-25 08:01:03 · answer #2 · answered by Ktcyan 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
By calling it a "cut and run timetable", you have already identified yourself as a Republican and we shouldn't even bother answering your question.
However, as biased as you clearly are, I'll explain a few things to you.
Firstly, in some point in a war, there is a cut and run portion. It's known as the end of it. Whether you leave before your objectives are met is a matter for your bravery in the case of a just and noble cause (like WWII) or a failed conflict started for political purposes with no objective other than to exploit the natural resources of another nation (like Iraq). So, leaving Iraq is going to be a cut and run at some point. It's a really silly argument and the kind of oversimplication that Karl Rove gets the Republicans to sell to simpleton America. Simple as that.
Secondly, and we have to be crystal clear on this, this nation is not a dictatorship, nor is it a junta. The people, through their democratically elected representatives, control the military, not the other way around. It matters not one iota that the commanders on the ground say anything at all. The people, through their congressmen and congresswomen, could be dead wrong, stupid and out of touch with the situation on the ground in every way, and it doesn't matter at all.
The people say when a war ends. The people decide on how to fight a war. The people call the shots. George Bush, all the yahoos on Fox News and all of the other conservative mouthpieces can say all they want to about it, but until they crown him King George II of America, I think they have to listen to us and do what WE say.
Therefore, if the Senate says that it's time to leave Iraq, well then guess what? It's time to leave. Period. End of story. In fact, since the Senate and the House control the money for this war, since it's not a truly declared one, they have the ultimate say-so in this matter, not the President. They could hold a war vote right now on this matter and then control everything about it, but they don't, because it's good strategy to let the commanders on the ground fight the war.
But what they do not do is tell the politicians what to do and how to do it. Sorry, that's the province of Cuba. We don't live in Cuba. We live in the USA, and we're a Federal Republic, not a Banana Republic.
2007-04-25 07:52:42 · answer #3 · answered by joshcrime 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It does not equate surrender to anybody, save the American public.
The rest of the world (and having been a foreigner myself once, I understand that perspective) considers the American public exceedingly over-emotive and weak. What Old World societies would consider acceptable losses are considered catastrophe by Americans.
During the 70s, an American general took a Soviet counterpart to Gettysburg. When the American explained to the Eastern Front veteran that 50,000 Americans became casualties during a single day of fighting, the Soviet general waved his hand dismissively. "Skirmish", he called it.
Leaving Iraq just means all the major paramilitaries will flex their muscles, take their gloves off, and fight it out in a final showdown while th Iraqi security forces tear themselves apart. Meanwhile, the rest of the world takes note: "If we hold the Americans for this long, and inflict this many losses, behead this many people, their people will lose heart and they will run away. They can win in a stand-up fight, but they cannot win against the people in a counterinsurgency".
Don't think the North Koreans, Chinese, and everyone else in the world hasn't taken note. Americans will be known far and wide (once again) as not having the nuts to see things through and the brains to finish the job. We've already told the enemy how they can outlast us and beat us, by using the American public against its military, its military's refusal to adapt to the times, and its government's inability to face the truth.
Now all that is left for us to do is show our allies that we are fair-weather friends and collaborating with us means death. Countless Iraqis have already died for their association with us and because they believed we were there to give them a chance. Countless more died after Gulf War One when the C-in-C incited the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs to revolt - whereupon they were massacred by heavy armor and helicopter gunships as we did nothing.
It's not surrender to the terror groups, because they already consider us beaten. It's surrender to the American public - and its craven desire to have happy news on CNN and to bury its head in the sand.
2007-04-25 07:51:16 · answer #4 · answered by Nat 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
So I guess Secretary of Defense is also a cut and runner, since he told the Iraqi govt the "clock is ticking" and that the debate at home is a good thing so as to light a fire on the collective behinds of the Al Maliki govt who has sat down and not made a move on all the things necessary for us to leave.
Heck we always were told " when the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down" so training their troops is a priority. Now it isn't. So we are to stay and be the front man for this lazy a*s govt? I don't think so
2007-04-25 07:53:32 · answer #5 · answered by thequeenreigns 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
properly, they had be incorrect, because of fact the IRS heavily isn't "working Obamacare." Their participation interior the low value Care Act is limited to amassing the penalty fee from people who do not fulfill the requirement to purchase scientific coverage. exciting fact: The IRS has no skill to stress human beings to pay the fee. The ACA bars the IRS from bringing a offender enforcement case against somebody who refuses to pay the non-coverage penalty. And it makes it very complicated, if not impossible, for it to enforce a tax lien. the only way they might collect it incredibly is deducting it from any tax refund due.
2016-10-30 06:45:16 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I think it is.
I can't imagine anything more naive and stupid than telling an enemy when you're going to retreat. Heaven help us if the Democrats get in power in 2008.
Appeasement has never worked !!
2007-04-25 07:49:00 · answer #7 · answered by Sean 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Pelosi and Reid should just hand over our troops if they want to announce a timeline. I think it is surrendering and our troops would have died and put all those years in for this? To be handed over. I hope the democrats fail and their timeline is completely stupid.
If troops die over the "timeline" I wonder what people will think then.
2007-04-25 07:48:50 · answer #8 · answered by Ann 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Waiting for Bush to surrender to reality.
2007-04-25 07:42:33 · answer #9 · answered by jeb black 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No and calling it cut and run is pretty silly..you cannot really be "cutting and running" if you have been there for 4+ years.
Addition> Next time do yahoo a favor. Just label your questions "Only those who think exactly like me please..all outsiders not welcome". Why ask the question if the only answer you will accept is "Those who do not obey are traitors"?. Anyway, I see some points here..I don't agree with most of them and they rely on disregarding a lot of facts but I do see the points.
2007-04-25 07:41:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋