Leaving Iraq now, or going in to begin with?
2007-04-30 03:30:22 · 15 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
cvq, I hear ya...I just don't trust the same man who made the first mistake, to make anymore decisions regarding the war. I don't trust him.
2007-04-30 03:48:36 · update #1
PS, we WERE all united in the beginning...perhaps calling democrats 'terrorists' and dividing this nation was a bad plan as well...don't expect me to rally behind something started on bad intel, and personal agendas...especially since i am STILL considered a terrorist. It is NOT the fault of those of us with questions, it is bad policy, and worse policy that got us here, and that is where the change needs to happen for success, and a country united. Do you think Bush is up to the task? Me either. I will re evaluate after the next president takes office, and decide if it has BECOME a war that I can support.
2007-04-30 03:51:50 · update #2
Going in there in the first place. If we hadn't done that, leaving wouldn't be an issue.
2007-04-30 03:37:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
There's only one we can avoid NOW.
One can indeed believe that invading was a mistake, and still believe leaving now would be the wrong course of action.
How can making one mistake - let's assume it was - justify a further mistake?
I know you are upset at the loss of American lives. I am too.
I think if we leave now, the problem will get worse and we'll have to go back, and lose even more lives.
I wish somehow all the energy being spent arguing about the war and trying to criticize every aspect of it could instead be used to unite and support the mission. Everyone has the right to say what they want, of course, but sometimes legal rights come with moral responsibilities. If we'd all been united maybe the war would have been over by now. Instead we prove to those fighting us and trying to stir up sectarian strife that we can be defeated.
Oh God! Monday morning and I've started already.
PS I think going into Iraq was the right decision, knowing what we knew then. There is no way to answer the question "would you go in knowing what you know now?" because we only know HALF of the story. We don't know what would have happened if we had NOT gone in.
Leaving now would be the greater wrong.
PPS I understand your position! thanks.
PPPS I agree - the rhetoric has gotten heated, on both sides. Look at what Bush and his supporters are called also. I am always careful to distinguish between the INTENT of people - to stop the war and bring the troops home - and the possible unintended EFFECTS. Bush has made mistakes, and has not done a good job at all of explaining what we are doing. But it's also as dangerous to disagree with Bush as a rule as it is to blindly agree with him. And even the sincere position that the steps we are taking are suspect because Bush is proposing them can be taken by some as criticism of Bush for political reasons and to get a Democrat in the White House. (And the mere fact that many Democratic officeholders have changed their positions on the war, after voting for it, once troops were in the field serves to amplify that perception.) It's a fine line between the two. If it's the right action, it shouldn't matter all that much who takes it.
No one's saying mistakes have not been made. The question is how to go forward.
Again, there will be the rest of history to judge the mistakes made already. I just want the best path going forward.
Again, thanks for the intelligent debate. Sometimes I actually DO learn something here, and talking out the issues does help me understand better. Maybe I should have listened to my last girlfriend when she said we needed to talk more! LOL
2007-04-30 10:40:41 · answer #2 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Leaving Iraq now. Saddam did support terrorists and met with Osama several times. Taking him out hurt support for Al-Qaeda, which is good. Now, we just dont need the terrorists to come back in, otherwise the war would be for nothing.
2007-04-30 10:39:21 · answer #3 · answered by Daniel 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Relying on Americans to have the stomach to handle a low intensity conflict like Iraq. Or having the people of America cheer the establishment of long term policy and legislation of war by a group of officials elected on two year rotations.
2007-04-30 10:36:30 · answer #4 · answered by claymore 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The answer is in Luke 21 22-24
What do you think?
Delta Dawn is in Bethlehem on X'mas day'
The three wise men with bearing gifts must be in attendance.
The missing shepherd who was lost with time must be there too in planet of apes.
The answers is in the missing key.
It lead us back to unfinish business from world war two.
So we can close the case for the good of mankind with the creation of peace on earth good will to men in planet of apes.
Luke 2.32
Ever wonder why the late Yasser Arafat left behind a piece of question on "What is an x-files" while Ariel Sharon were waiting for the answers in planet of apes.
2007-04-30 10:43:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Going to begin with, but now that we're there . . .
It's a Tar Baby - there is now no way to pull out without getting dirty. He has created a worse mess than Vietnam. I find it ironic that a guy that used everything he could to keep out of Vietnam has actually created something far worse.
2007-04-30 10:41:59 · answer #6 · answered by Garth Rocket 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Leaving Iraq now would not be a mistake - going in to begin with was.
2007-04-30 10:37:01 · answer #7 · answered by kbama 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Without a doubt, going in in the first place was the bigger mistake!
2007-04-30 10:48:19 · answer #8 · answered by tangerine 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Going in to begin with.
Now that it is a clusterf**k, and it would probably get worse if we did leave. At least it wouldn't be our best and brightest caught in the crossfire.
As SRV said it - stranded.
2007-04-30 10:34:25 · answer #9 · answered by Joe M 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Going in in the first place!
2007-04-30 11:04:45 · answer #10 · answered by tika 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋