English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Bush has set benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but has steadfastly opposed attaching any timeframe to them or any actions if they are not met.

So basically if Iraq doesn't reach the goals then we just stay forever? I thought the whole point of staying is for Iraq to take over but if the US can not quell the violence of the civil war then the troops are going to be there forever doomed to possibly die trying to protect a failing government set up by George and Tricky dick Cheney. What a way to try to win a war, lets not have an exit strategy but instead just keep dumping money into a flawed war where the enemy is faceless.

2007-04-27 07:37:58 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

lol @ playball. When did you become a psychologist?

2007-04-27 07:42:45 · update #1

Ok susi. If you know who the enemy is then why did you not state it. You don't even know who the enemy is by your lack of acknowledging who the enemy is.

2007-04-27 07:43:54 · update #2

lol @ tired. Waiting to leave. The civil war is going on with us there.

2007-04-27 07:45:14 · update #3

lol. We have troops in Germany. We have an embassy over there but as far as troops doing any aciont over there I would like for you to post some proof on that.

2007-04-27 07:48:29 · update #4

Ok bases are different then having troops engaging in combat. Don't get sidetracked people. Just cause we have a base somewhere doesn't mean we are in a war over there. I meant stay as in stay and patrol a civil war until the doomed to fail Iraqi government can take over.

2007-04-27 07:52:07 · update #5

Ron Paul is at least anti iraq war.

While Democrats and Republicans on the Hill continue their “Yeah but now I’m against it” routine, Texas Congressman Ron Paul doesn’t have to issue any apologies. He was always against the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and he’s running for president.

2007-04-27 07:58:00 · update #6

lmao at Hil e. Dont you think it would be easier to protect america here than infuriate enemies over there? Seems like that would be better for our kids. by the way, do you have any cause I do and I would rather have the troops here than over there policing a civil war.

2007-04-27 08:23:44 · update #7

29 answers

Bush is an idiot. He needs to be impeached.

2007-04-27 07:39:29 · answer #1 · answered by Jimbo 3 · 9 6

My, My, My; what intelligent answers you all have:

If you want see your children and grandchildren grow up in a more peaceful world than today Finish this job. If you want 20, 30, 50 more years of what you have already seen for the last 25 from an enemy that has Proven that he intends to destroy you then surrender and bug out. This “they will not follow us home” BS is just wishful thinking. Remember these are the same people who say they are still mad about a war that was over 500 years ago. You think they might want to do something to a country and its people that it just got to run away by a few insignificant acts of terror.

By the way what has this to do with who the president is? 9/11 and all the other terrorists acts over the last 30 or so years were to hurt America. These people want your children dead and say so every day. You run away it is the same as issuing an invitation to come in and kill them.

Cheers

Hil Evers

2007-04-27 07:52:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Our enemies over there have hated us for a full century. We make their efforts harder and harder. We deluge their people with free speech, ideas of equality, concepts such as free expression and religious freedom.

HOW DARE WE! What villians!
But some think their hate started with President Bush ("read a book").

It's stunning to realize that people actually try to reduce this conflict to ONE factor, whichever one they think will most make them political points.

Here's one you didn't consider. It isn't about staying in there forever. It's about giving the seeds of freedom we've planted for the people of Iraq time to grow.

President Bush IS considering when to leave. He just won't encourage our enemy by stating a date (wise).

He is considering leaving because it is too late for the Islamic dictators. Freedom is already being spread by a thousand methods, throughout Islam, an entire web of methods being used to spread it (airwaves, fliers, underground groups, conversions, Islamic people starting a revolution of ideas and speech that Islam cannot survive the way it is.

The dictators will be torn down. Freedom will be embraced by Islam (if it survives, God willing), and Islam will join the 21st century and embrace the West and progress (though they will still disagree with us and protect their own interests, assuming we planted the seed correctly. We don't need a puppet, just allies).

The desperate attacks on our country trying (in very poorly thought out ways due to lack of understanding of our country's freedom of speech) to undermine the war or our government simply turn our people to deeper thought and controversy, which has always made us stronger, not weaker. That's why we don't want you to stop speaking up. You make us stronger.

We just see no reason not to point out how seditious your posts are (the name-calling, dear, not the points you are trying to make, which may be valid).

Good luck learning the difference between sedition and patriotic dissent. We'll cheer when you figure it out, as you certainly don't appear to be another uneducated President basher as have appeared against Former President Clinton OR President Bush.

2007-04-28 15:17:08 · answer #3 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 0 0

If he had to stay there for even a week the war would be over.

He would like the American Occupation to last forever, because war is the health of the State, and he believes in the State controlled by him and his friends.

If his kind (in both parties) stay in power, America will still be in Iraq and a hundred other countries as long as you live.

Our only hope is to elect Ron Paul as President.
He was one of a very small number who were smart enough to see the evidence for war was not there in the first place.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm

http://www.ronpaul2008.com

2007-04-27 07:47:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

The Bush agenda is to have a government in Iraq that is 100% pro oil for the US.

In order to do that, he needs to be able to subdue the majority of the Iraqi people or convince them to agree on a central government.

To sudue the Iraqi people would require a massive commitment of US troops to enforce a police state.

To convice the Iraqi people to support a central government would require making peace between the three main factions wh are traditional enemies.

Since Bush can't comitt the numbers of troops to Iraq and hasn't the diplomatic skill to make peace between the factions, he is stuck!

2007-04-27 07:43:31 · answer #5 · answered by afreshpath_admin 6 · 3 2

Iraq was a bad idea, granted. However, if we pull out now what will happen?

The saudi's and the Iranians start goin' at it over Iraq, Isreal of course gets drawn in and takes out Iran which pisses off China and the ruskies. Sound like the end of a book we all know?

2007-04-27 08:50:20 · answer #6 · answered by Reisnoh 4 · 1 1

Setting up a democracy in the middle of jihad central is ingenious. Separating Iran from Syria is going to eventually provide the only way in which we will be more secure from the islamo-fascists war against the west. I don't care if it takes another 20 years as long as we are working towards security for the next generation. How many years have we had troops in South Korea and Germany? I bet we won't have troops in Iraq as long. Have we become such a pathetic, week , impatient generation compared to the World War II generation that we can't even see past our own noses? Thank you "Me Generation" for nothing.

2007-04-27 07:45:48 · answer #7 · answered by blissdds 4 · 1 4

Just look back at our history of vacating any land once we set up shop in their territory.
Japan, over 60 years, and some of the Japanese Islands, South korea, over 55 years, Germany, since WW2.
Yes, I think we will be in Iraq almost forever, unless and until they run us out by military means.
In order to eventually dominate the world, we must have bases on every continent, and of course, for the protection of Israel we must be in the area.

2007-04-27 07:46:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

It's a shitty war with Iraq. Because he can't evacuate Iraq from civilians and bomb the place to pieces......so how this war is gonna end? Are they gonna find someone from Iraq who speak English and make the other countries join the Iraq? NEAH! WHY IRAQ DOESN'T WANT TO SURRENDER? Because they are making what their leader said. Ossama Binladen : " Those Bastards don't know that we Shittaquans know how to **** on ourselves." "Bush doesn't know that we SUCKAQUANS are gonna bomb the WTC (World Trade Center) to pieces." "Our plan is perfect." he thinked. So Ossama Shitladden ordered to make the war as long as they can, and the assholes listened.....I'm preety tired of war with Iraquans. Because is shitty and it has no sense. So my advice is: Evacuate the civilians and bomb the place to pieces. P.S. I'm only 12 years old.

2007-04-27 08:46:59 · answer #9 · answered by darth_lizard06 1 · 0 2

We'll be in Iraq as long as Bush is in office. I don't think he wants to be there forever. Our involvement is not open-ended.

I agree with your sentiments about needing an exit strategy.

2007-04-27 07:54:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

IMHO of course, but I don't think Georgy boy has any goals, he is just "winging" it. He simply has no pertinent education. Maybe he shouldn't have run Powell off because he was the only one in the administration with the knowledge base necessary for "informed decisions".

2007-04-27 07:53:14 · answer #11 · answered by tom l 6 · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers