2007-07-20 03:44:42 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070720/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq;_ylt=A0WTUZdhWqBGmDEAxhus0NUE
2007-07-20 03:45:53 · update #1
That's the Bush argument -- leave them there until he's out of office, so he can avoid any responsibility by dumping the problem in someone else's lap. His version of "cut and run".
But does it really surprise anyone? In November they said wait until January. In January, they said want until the Surge. In May, they said wait until July. In June, they said wait until the report comes out in September.
At this point, the only thing that's constant is that they keep pushing the "wait until...." date farther back, and they keep doing it earlier and earlier.
2007-07-20 03:49:09 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 5⤋
The strategy is to buy more time september turns into november then next may and so on and so forth. Its getting out of hand. What is amazing is that general P has already told the media what his report was going to be, he stated that it would not b all good or all bad we already know what his opinion is we just waiting becuase the adminstration needs to get their story together or hope they do something (like catch the #2 Al-Qaeda in Iraq) to show progress and buy even more time. A Perfect scenario for Bush will be to hand this over to the next pres and when **** hits the fan he will look back and say "Man they ****** up, I did a great job when i was pres."
2007-07-20 10:55:21 · answer #2 · answered by Bye-Partisan 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I was completely opposed to the War before we got there. Once US troops set foot on the ground I feel there's no way average citizens can understand the situation there. Now that we stirred the pot there, we can't leave. We will be there indefinitely. If we leave in 2 years, we'll just have to go back soon. Besides, the US already has permanant bases in Iraq and the embassy, Fortress Baghdad, which is the size of the Vatican.
2007-07-20 10:52:31 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yea why not. I wonder how good the real eastate market is over there. We should just buy a city and have all the troops live there. Better yet why not make Iraq a territory and maybe after 10 years or so after we calm the population down make it a state.
2007-07-20 10:48:37 · answer #4 · answered by Mr. Martini 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
As a wife of a deployed Army soldier, the troops should stay as long as they are needed. What they are doing is so important for our future, most people do not realize this.
Right now, we are still needed in the Middle East. Yes, I'd love for my husband to come home. We've missed so much time together--Christmas, birthdays, family get-togethers. Yet, I know what he is doing is helping MILLIONS of people, and it makes me VERY proud.
God Bless Our Troops!
2007-07-20 10:48:59 · answer #5 · answered by Obama, 47 y/o political virgin 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No, not indefinitely, but we should definitely wait for the information from the generals actually there. The senators should also actually show up for the briefings from the generals. When they don't, any comments they have on Iraq are uneducated and based on personal biases and biased media reports. I prefer to listen to military experts. If Petreus says we need to leave, I will respect his opinion. I don't respect the opinions of Senators with political biases.
2007-07-20 10:49:40 · answer #6 · answered by Rich people employ me 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Well, I could have told anyone this was going to happen. Bushs' 'progress report' idea was just a stalling technique to keep our troops there longer.
And no, U.S. troops should leave immediately. The story about the 'chaos' and 'terrorism' isn't real, either.
2007-07-20 10:48:50 · answer #7 · answered by Big Bear 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Our troops need to remain until our mission is complete. It will quite likely be a long time - 10 plus years.
2007-07-20 10:47:40 · answer #8 · answered by The Real America 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Unless it turns out like Vietnam -- and it may well do so -- then even after we start pulling out we will keep a military presense.
If it does turn out like Vietnam, then we will probably abandon ship and cut our losses.
2007-07-20 11:32:07 · answer #9 · answered by beavermj 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well American Troops are still in Bosnia...who sent them there? Oh yea, the Liberal hero Bill Clinton...we are still in Korea (30K +), Japan, Italy, and German...when are we going to pull out of those places? Let's pull out of American hating Korea first, then move to other places...shall we?
2007-07-20 10:59:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
You are aware, I take it, that our Idiot King's administration admitted there was no "plan B." Indeed, there really never have been alternative plans, throughout this whole fiasco. I don't believe we should continue financing this bogus adventure with our fellow Americans' blood or our children's tax dollars.
2007-07-20 10:53:23 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋