and the government is stabilizing, would you support our presence there?
2007-07-22 14:42:28 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
and please don't say something like, "but it's not improving!" or, "it can never improve", because that is not the question. There should be no problems for a 5 year old to understand the question, so most of you should be able to, also.
2007-07-22 14:43:58 · update #1
Sure -- if there is evidence that it's not an unlimited open-ended occupation, and if we can count on the Iraqi govt actually stepping up to the plate in a reasonable time....
The primary objection is that all evidence shows neither of those things is going to happen. If there is sufficient evidence that both of those are going to happen, then any reasonable person should be willing to re-evaluate their plans.
That's one difference I've observed in most liberals that I don't see in their opposition -- liberals are willing to re-evaluate their conclusions when the facts change.
2007-07-22 14:46:40 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
If our great thinkers could help the Iraqis to feel secure enough to participate in their own governmental process I could see providing a minimal level of military support. Unfortunately we can not even provide them with the basic needs such as clean water, reliable power and sufficient basic medical care. I do not believe we should continue to allow thousands more of our military personnel to be killed under the false pretense of making our country safe from terrorists. If you believe that the lives of the people that died in 9/11 were valuable, and the lives of all the soldiers we've lost in Iraq are valuable why do you want to kill more of our precious children so far away from home and the people that love them all for the ego of Bush and Cheney?
2007-07-22 21:53:16 · answer #2 · answered by raven754 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
If they were improving by themselves why would they need us in the first place? To build more military bases?
They've had more than enough time to get their act together. Their "army" is still in shambles. How much more of America's blood should we sacrifice for a country that would rather devolve to civil war?
2007-07-22 21:50:06 · answer #3 · answered by Sangria 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Nope...I never believed getting revenge on
that "mean man" who tried to kill Mr. Bush's Daddy
was even a good reason for USA to invade Iraq
in the 1st place.
2007-07-23 00:54:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
You mean if theres an evidence that the mess we created in Iraq is slowly recovering back to the way Iraq was, before we invaded??hmmm i'm gonna have to think about that....
2007-07-22 21:49:37 · answer #5 · answered by MrEntrepreneur 3 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Yes, but with troops having shorter tours and switching the mission to humanitarian.
2007-07-22 21:44:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
No. Can you understand that? I figure even you can understand one syllable words. (see I can make irrelevant insipid insulting comments too)
2007-07-22 21:51:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
My nephew has been There twice and he tells me it is hell over there.....................To believe that it is stabilizing over there is like saying Bush is a good president,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and any 5th grader would agree with this.
2007-07-22 21:46:59 · answer #8 · answered by sassassgirlusa 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No. We have no business being there in the first place.
2007-07-22 21:46:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
No, just because the mess isn't as messy--doesn't make it less of a mess. And any less WRONG!
2007-07-22 21:50:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋