What Is A Worse Idea Than Suddenly Pulling Out of Iraq?

Question

My first guess would be to then immediately invade an unstable nuclear power.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/01/obama-would-take-war-on-terror-into-pakistan/

Answer 1

I don't know. Still waiting to see some evidence of "The Plan".

So far it is just more of the same.

No plan.

Bigger patrols so the creeps have more targets at a time.

All horse hokey, smoke and mirrors, no plan that is going to work better than a sudden pull-out. I guess when Haliburton etc. are no longer profiting there will be a disorganized retreat with still no plan.

Answer 2

The first thing is, we are not going to pull out of Iraq any time soon. Look at the facts. We are sending thousands of troops there still.... do you know why, I do, and I cant say how I know, but I know! Within the next 90 days, the US is going to pummel all of the little villiages and hostile areas in Iraq where the insurgents are hiding. And when I say pummel, I mean it. I am talking plowing over house after house until there is nothing left. Dont be fooled by media. We will be there for a while. As far as you question goes, if we did pull out of Iraq, the worst thing we could do is not pay attention to the little peewee unstable nuclear powers. It is in our best interest to disarm them and take them out. Remember we are America and we will not let some little country like Iran try to Intimidate us. They need to know that they are never going to be powerful enough to take us out or even come close to getting thier missiles close to our borders. This whole thing is game, and its a game that these unstable counties will lose. Be realistic and Patriotic. I know that we lose American lives everday and it is sad, but can you really say that it isnt worth letting these countries like Afganistan and Iraq and Iran know that we wont put up with there Terroristic Bull ****! They need to know to back off of everyone or pay the price, I know I will never let my freedom be taken away or threatened. They can Kiss my American ***!
Joshua

Answer 3

maybe the particularly worst humorous tale i've got ever heard - a jar-dropping, who-ought to-discover-that-humorous form of humorous tale - grew to become into in would 2004 during the as quickly as a year Radio and tv Correspondents Dinner in Washington, while George Bush presented up a slide coach of himself finding under fixtures in the Oval workplace for the weapons of mass destruction Iraq in no way had. "those weapons of mass destruction have have been given to be someplace," Bush joked. "Nope, no weapons over there ... possibly under right here?" Sorry this is not any longer humorous, yet you asked 'the worst', no longer a only undesirable humorous tale or a undesirable pun.

Answer 4

I don't think anything could be worse than suddenly pulling out of Iraq which would put our own troops in danger. I've been watching CNN today and can only say it is pretty one-sided politically. The way they report the news would be bound to make a Democrat angry and paranoid. That may explain why so many are.

Answer 5

Invading Iraq in the first place.

Answer 6

Invading Iraq in the first place was a much dumber idea.

It is much, much easier to start a bloodbath than it is to finish one... Source: Human history

Answer 7

I agree that Obama's idea is lunacy, but my answer is asking Ted Kennedy for a ride across a bridge is worse.

Answer 8

That's right. I forgot about Pakistan being a nuclear power.

Answer 9

Invading to try and take over teh govt, or topple it -- yes, that would be worse.

Launching a specific military strike against known terrorist training camps -- very different.

Attacking Pakistan (the govt) would provoke a much stronger reaction than attacking terrorists IN Pakistan (the place).

Answer 10

Not pulling out of Iraq.