I am sure you will get a bunch of responses that we are still in Afghanistan...because we are, but I am with you on that. That should have been the only place we were, and now it is barely a blip on our news radar.
Bush is prolonging the war in an attempt to save face, he is stubborn and cannot admit his mistake. Then there is also the issue of oil. When this 'War on Terror' began it was said that the oil would pay for it, well that hasn't happened. Hence, we are still there.
2007-05-09 08:45:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by Meggerz 2
·
0⤊
3⤋
We never left Afghanistan, it just doesn't get as much news play because not a whole lot is going on there. A soldier only gets Hazard Duty pay if he is sent to Afghanistan, he gets Combat Pay if he is sent to Iraq. To give you an idea what Hazard Duty pay is, soldiers also get Hazard Duty pay for being stationed in Korea.
Right now we are still in Iraq because we are trying to fix what we screwed up. I don't think anyone expected it to turn the way it did when we got rid of Saddam. If we leave now, you will see genocide on a scale that would make the Holocaust look like the VT Shooting.
If we leave and let that happen, what was the point in getting rid of Saddam in the first place? The reason we got rid of him was because he was torturing his own people and if we leave now, what he did will be nothing compared to what will happen.
2007-05-09 15:54:29
·
answer #2
·
answered by Burn It 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Suggested readings:
1. Ignorant Armies
2. Future: Tense
Both by Gwynne Dyer avaiilable at on-line booksellers (if you can't find them at Amazon or Barnes and Noble, then Chapters/Indigo in Canada definitely has them. Intelligent man, excellent writer and the definitive description of the motivation for and consequence of the Iraq situation. Highly recommended.
2007-05-09 15:53:28
·
answer #3
·
answered by PAUL S 1
·
0⤊
2⤋