2007-07-24 12:33:48 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They're plan is to raise taxes, and replace Grammar with "Understanding Muslims" in the public schools.
Good Bless America!
2007-07-24 23:33:50 · answer #1 · answered by Gary Dayton 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Chaos already exists now, and our presence in Iraq has already caused some of that chaos. The real question is what will cause more chaos, withdrawing in a responsible way and making it clear to the Iraqi government that they must assume some responsibility for the situation in their own country, or staying and giving everybody there an excuse for either fighting amongst themselves, or taking shots at us. And how long a commitment must we make, and how can you guarantee that it will be enough? And will the army continue to find the recruits needed to stay in Iraq for many years to come?
You know that the same argument was made about Vietnam, and yes, there was some chaos when we left, and yes the North Vietnamese did take over a couple of years later. But would our continued presence have prevented that? Or would we still be in Vietnam? And how bad off is Vietnam today anyway? It seems to me that we have pretty good relations with that country and things are pretty peaceful in that part of the world. As opposed to, for example, Korea, where we never left, and therefore we still have to maintain a huge army there 50 years later, and where there are continued tensions between North and South.
2007-07-24 12:41:42 · answer #2 · answered by rollo_tomassi423 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The plan is to make Iraq another Vietnam: get out of an unpopular war and let the country go to hell in a hand basket. We left Vietnam without finishing the job because it was fought PC. We are doing it all over again only this time our president wont give in to the cut & run crowd, he knows if we leave Iraq it will be another massive killing field like vietnam. The Dem's want Bush to end the war because if he doesn't & they win the presidentcy, heaven forbid, they will not end it; they know it would be a grave mistake & mass murders would follow our exit.
2007-07-24 12:49:43 · answer #3 · answered by BIKERSTAG 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
My take on it is that we will have to stabilize Iraq, since we unstabilized it. We have spent millions on permanent bases over there...so my guess is that we will remain "prescence" after the country is stabilized. We have done that in every other country we have been at war with as far as I know. Like Japan for instance. There's about 8 US military bases on Okinawa alone. We now have a nice working relationship with them (although they have a handful of weekly protestors). We employ a LOT of Okinawans on base too, and yes our military spend US dollars in Japan. And we also serve as a deterrent to any attacks on Japan by North Korea.
Likewise the same would work for Iraq. Would be a nice advantage to them eventually to have our peaceful "presence" there. That is unless Bush has plans to give his Saudi buddies all their resources so they can in turn invest it in the companies they are all in together!
sniff sniff....I smell a rat
Oh...BTW the Iraqis weren't in a civil war until we got there! Then they started dividing and picking sides. Kinda like we did over slavery???? Remember?? North vs. South and all that??
2007-07-24 12:49:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is inevitable to cut and run, thanks to GWB. Terrorism can never be defeated because it is an idealism.
We never should have gone to Iraq, we are only putting more pressure on the spring. Once we let go, it will hurt a lot, but you know what? The rest of the world deals with dozens of foreign terrorist acts a year.
So I, as a liberal (not Liberal, go do some homework if you want to know the difference), say "DEAL WITH IT". Your dumb candidate put us there and were gonna suffer with it. But were gonna suffer together as a country.
So quit trying to split the finite differences between liberals and conservatives and GET A FRIGGIN JOB!
2007-07-24 12:38:26 · answer #5 · answered by PSU840 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
You mean the chaos we have NOW? The chaos we DIDN'T have before Bush went on his ridiculous expedition?
Bin Laden and al Queda were in Afghanistan and now they're in Pakistan. They were never in Iraq and neither were WMDs.
You are in no position to use words like "cut and run" until you apologize for your support for creating the problem in the first place.
2007-07-24 13:00:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
The people of that region have been solving their problems for over 3000 years. They will settle things this time too. The Iraqi government says we could leave at any time. They must think things will work out. Personally I don't care what happens there. War is chaos, civil war is chaos, and so they are used to chaos. So what difference would it make if we left? I'll tell you the difference. Americans wouldn't be getting killed or maimed.
2007-07-24 12:38:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Hey if you want to go over there and keep the peace, I will happily deputize Dudley Doright.
The Plan is to withdraw to a safe location, rearm, recruit, rebuild the forces that we have lost in this disaster and hunt down AQ until they are no more.
Secure the "Homeland" first ;Then engage the bastards overseas.
That's my plan what is your's?
2007-07-24 12:41:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
"inevitable chaos"
That means you think Iraq isn't in chaos now. What a fool you are.
2007-07-24 12:44:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Some of us know that we just can't pull out of there. We have to find a way to help the people of that country learn to stand on their own two feet.
Only when we have figured that out, can we start bringing our troops home to their families.
2007-07-24 12:39:57 · answer #10 · answered by nana4dakids 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋