The House voted last night to withdraw our troops from Iraq by April of next year, leaving behind "a small force to train Iraqis, protect US assets, and fight terrorists" - and certainly to be slaughtered wholesale Mogadishu style. If the dems think the war is wrong and unwinnable, why leave any troops behind at all? Is it in the hopes that images of these troops being dragged through the streets of Bagdhad will turn Americans against the war once and for all? Or is it that they just don't have the political backbone to call for a full retreat?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/07/13/as_bush_stays_firm_house_votes_pullout/
2007-07-13 15:16:31 · 11 answers · asked by Eukodol 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
"Because despite what you people keep saying, Democrats have never said, 'We need to withdraw every American from Iraq immediately'."
Oh yeah? How about Jack Murtha?
"The United States will immediately redeploy -- immediately redeploy!"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111700982.html
2007-07-13 16:23:49 · update #1
*SIGH* You poor blind sheep.
You cannot invade a nation near our nation's vital strategic interests and walk away because it's too hard. Every demorat that is out there screaming "pull-out" is a boob and should be voted out of office for having no capacity to understand foreign policy and thus have no right to hold office in the US Congress. So, this is how they change the colors of their stripes. If we pull out entirely, the region becomes VERY unstable as the cival war escalates. This environment will certainly threaten oil reserves, Israel, and spread extremism. All three of which are counter to US strategy globally.
Now the republicants' plans are just as shady because they want to use the 'carrot and stick'. When in doubt, throw more troops at it. I don't like their plans either.
2007-07-13 15:30:45 · answer #1 · answered by mye_725 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
a bit dramatic?
we've been there for 4 years and if we haven't trained anyone any better than that they will just get over ran easily... then we may as well quit now...
I don't know if you ever look at what's going on in Iraq.. .but it's not all out warfare... only bombing for the vast majority...
how many nations have been over run by car bombs?
do you ever notice that Republicans call you a coward no matter what? if you want to leave, you're a coward... if you want to leave some troops... then you're a coward too apparently?
flip flop
2007-07-13 15:23:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
U.S. try against operations in Iraq won't formally end till Aug. 31, the cut-off date set with the aid of Obama for the alleviation of the strain to 50,000 troops who would be in touch in what the protection tension calls "stability operations." The formal conflict project is now in truth over. in the advent days 2,000 extra troops from gadgets scattered around the rustic will go away bringing the quantity final all the way down to the 50,000 promised with the aid of the president. The U.S. protection tension stresses that it continues to be a good sized kind of troops & they are going to be geared up with substantial firepower (fighter jets/attack helicopters besides as 4,500 particular Forces contributors who will carry out counterterrorism missions, alongside Iraqi opposite numbers). Troops left at the back of would be spoke of as advise & help Brigades. they are going to concentration on advising & mentoring Iraqi protection forces till the December 2011 cut-off date for the departure of all U.S. forces below the words of a 2008 p.c.. between Iraq and the U.S.
2016-10-01 13:51:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Democrats want the end of major US involvement as mediators between Sunnis, Shiites, and other fanatics. Our focus should only be on those fanatics; not the interfighting of the Sunnis and Shiites. Thus, to hunt fanatics down, you don't need over a hundred thousand troops in one country, especially when the fanatics are all over the place.
2007-07-13 15:27:55 · answer #4 · answered by K 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because they are smart enough to know that is exactly what Bush is counting on, so he can blame democrats for instability in Iraq, when the only stability the place had was under Saddam to begin with.
John Warner of Virginia and Richard Lugar of Indiana, are democrats?/ when did this happen?!
2007-07-13 16:03:05 · answer #5 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't like what has happened in Iraq and I am disgusted by this administrations planning and execution of this war, but I don't believe we can leave now. We are in this mess and there is not good outcome. There is only the least disastrous outcome. I also don't like hearing that it is only Democrats that want us out. Many leading and knowledgeable Republicans want us out as well.
2007-07-13 15:25:31 · answer #6 · answered by Truth Erector 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because despite what you people keep saying, Democrats have never said, "We need to withdraw every American from Iraq immediately."
The fact that YOU think we've said that doesn't make it true.
2007-07-13 15:24:56 · answer #7 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have no idea. But when we leave I want all Americans out of iraq.
2007-07-13 15:20:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Dems will not pull out of Iraq.
2007-07-13 15:21:03 · answer #9 · answered by ? 1 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Because someone has to clean up Bush's mess. Their deaths will be on his conscience if he had one.
2007-07-13 15:21:00 · answer #10 · answered by redphish 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋