She actually wants a contingent of troops (of an unknown number) to remain in order to fight terrorists and provide a quick-strike capability. She has also said that this will prevent Iran from having a free hand in Iraq should we leave altogether.
It pains me to say this, but I agree with her in all but one regard. I don't think there should be any draw down. That being said, she seems to be "tuned-in" to the realities of the war and the region.
Obviously, she is moving towards the center on this issue for political and practical reasons. Does her position put her at odds with far-left Liberals and Democrats? Is she trying to have her cake and eat it, too? Do you support her stance or do you think we should pull out completely?
2007-07-18 04:15:49 · 12 answers · asked by macDBH 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I wish I didn't agree but I think I do. And maybe I am not cynical enough, but I think the move towards the center is more than just political and practical -- I think she is looking at the reality of the situation, and she sees that pulling out completely could be a mistake and could leave more of a mess than there is right now. I wish we could pull out completely, but I think it is not realistic.
2007-07-18 04:24:31 · answer #1 · answered by jkr17 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Realise that this was all planned in the pentagon many many years ago. Even a monkey could have figured out that Iran would become the new threat once Saddam was removed, the pentagon knew that would happen, they planned for that to happen. They want nothing more than to wage war with Iran, because Iran controls the straights of Hormuz.........most of the wests oil tankers pass through there, also look on a map and notice how the US has begun to draw a line of troops between Russia and China and the oil reserves of the middle east. War means big profitis for the US...the economy goes goes up whenever there is a war going on. The only bad buzz is that the ones who are making the money are the arms dealers, aircraft manufacturers, missile builders, Carlyle group and oil barons.
2007-07-18 04:25:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We will never leave Iraq. We may reduce troops by a lot, but we will never leave. The Korea War started over 50 years ago, and we are still there. Granted, the war is only in a cease fire, but there is no need for us there either.
No matter who is President, they will not totally withdraw troops from that region. If they did, Iraq would be taken over by other countries as soon as we left. Then, we wouldn't be able to force those other countries out. We are fighting the terrorists from there, so if we can keep the battle on their soil and prevent another 9-11, we will do it. It if means that us men and women in the Military have to go over there for a year, so be it. If one soldiers life prevents 1000's of US civilians from dying, so be it. Our involvement in Iraq is beyond their borders. Its not about oil, granted, that country having oil helps, but its mainly about keeping the terrorist occupied over there. If they are busy fighting us there, they can't come here and cause problems. Not to mention, we have more people on the look out for them, so their chances of success is much slimmer now.
2007-07-18 04:24:32 · answer #3 · answered by George P 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Billery voted for it before she voted against it. Don't any 1 of the D have any core beliefs. Shed sell her own sole for the chance to be Pres=== The troops are a pawn she using to get votes.Pulling out would be a complete disaster.Let our military do there job if they'd had all the support from the beginning we would of been out if there by know.She don't like cake i heard she likes pie.
2007-07-18 04:31:23 · answer #4 · answered by 45 auto 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. i think of that Bush believes that a US withdrawal from Iraq skill that Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, al qaeda, or whomever, can walk in and take over Iraq, benefit administration of Iraqi oil, slaughter and subjugate the Iraqi human beings and use their potential to proceed their terroristic time table. That the atheists in this u . s . a . would seek for to make this a non secular conflict, to the detriment of their own u . s . a ., is in basic terms incredible.
2016-11-09 19:24:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no way that we will be able to completely remove all troops from Iraq for the forseeable future...but we should be moving them out of combat situations and use them to contain outside influences from Iran, Pakistan, etc.
2007-07-18 04:21:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
It may hurt her with the far left....but the centrist make up the majority of the voters...while the far left and far right have huge influence in the primaries,,,,,the middle decides the election
2007-07-18 04:23:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would personally support a moderate, realistic solution... and ANY candidate that can come up with one.
2007-07-18 04:22:47 · answer #8 · answered by Bon Mot 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That was just one version you heard. She will say anything to get elected. I don't trust her as far as I could throw the white house.
2007-07-18 04:20:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
i do not care what that hag has to say about anything and the though of that witch as commander-in-chief of the armed forces of these united states makes me sick ...
2007-07-18 04:24:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋