I favor the Impeachment of Bush for causing these kinds of questions to raised to begin with.
2007-08-03 01:52:50
·
answer #1
·
answered by somber 3
·
8⤊
8⤋
you obtain it spectacular, i think of! ordinary Petraeus have been given his activity because of the fact the different Generals informed Bush the warfare could no longer be gained. So he canned them...or promoted them, in spite of the shown fact which you prefer to look at it...and located Petraeus, who has been lingering interior the shadows for an prolonged time. Petraeus is a rubber-stamper, "sure, sir....sure, sir," and could temper his record with words like..."it extremely is going to take endurance. we could constantly practice greater Iraqi troops before they might take over."..etc. etc. yet, of direction, he will say that victory is merely around the nook. Victory has been merely around the nook for approximately 5-six years now. that's lurking with Dick Cheney's "the insurgents are very almost broken." we've knowledgeable the Iraqi, and knowledgeable the Iraqi, and knowledgeable the Iraqi. it form of feels that a Boy Scout could be knowledgeable to be a soldier in this length of time. the motives are in place. The oilwells are interior the hands of prized companies. Petraeus will examine the script given him. All is unquestionably in Bushworld, the land of fairy memories and desires of glory. regrettably, the subsequent gal or fellow will could face a heavy dose of actuality.
2016-10-19 09:00:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
General Petraeus is a hand picked puppet of Bush. He will say what he is told to say. That said, I don't see how we can leave Iraq now that we've opened this can of worms. Shame on us for doing so, but it'll only be worse if we just leave it.
2007-08-03 02:42:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by punxy_girl 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think we should withdraw from Iraq. The whole action has been a horrific mistake from the get go. We went there under a pack of lies from the Bush administration. How do you know that Petraeus would be any different from his commander in chief? Some see a glass half empty, some see it half full. I don't think the truth of it is at issue. I have to agree with crabby on this one. Nobody else should have to die because Bush has ego problems. This whole war is a huge mistake and Bush needs impeachment. He should be tried for war crimes.
2007-08-03 02:00:56
·
answer #4
·
answered by kolacat17 5
·
3⤊
3⤋
If Petraeus reports progress, he's lying. That's obvious from the reports coming from Iraq.
And in any case, not one more American soldier should have to die for the sake of Bush's ego or dreams of empire. So no, I would not support staying under any circumstances. Nothing has ever justified a war of aggression against a country that never attacked us--and nothing ever will.
2007-08-03 01:56:42
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
3⤋
It seems hopeless because the Defeatocrats want you to believe that~I support the President and Our military. I'll wait for Petraeus's word.
2007-08-03 02:19:30
·
answer #6
·
answered by Classic96 4
·
2⤊
2⤋
If the al Qaeda terrorists decide to leave Iraq,(go to safer ground,say...Pakistan's border area)and turn it over to the locals to continue the turmoil in the form of a civil war, I doubt the military will even know the difference,and continue to stay and referee the chaos, (which is exactly what's taking place.as we speak.....)Is the surge working.?..Yes, but not the way we intended...
2007-08-03 01:59:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
They reporting progress since April 2003, as I remember. We have our tanks rattling through the desert since 20 March 2003 and I have heard nothing but progress and turning corners from each White House Puppet. 187 American soldiers died from friendly fire in the first three weeks, some fell drunk of their tanks or came to late for breakfast, like J. Lynch. Not one single man died form enemy fire, same like in Desert Storm. Only after all the infrastructure was destroyed, the museums are looted and 16year olds rapped, Iraq's turned to hate for the occupiers and this will only increase with time. Lets get out today.
2007-08-03 01:59:44
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
3⤋
We should not be there.
It's not the "lack of victory" or anything else. Simply put, the terrorists have ALWAYS wanted us to do exactly what we are doing...waste lives and money, while they gain more and more support from the arab world.
Osama is quite happy with the fact that we overthrew saddam. Osama once tired to have saddam killed.
Osama loves the fact that al-queda is growing, and arabs get a chance to fight against "crusaders".
Osama loves the fact that we've decided to put hunting al queda second, defending our borders a distant third and "stabilizing" iraq first.
Osama prays each day that we stay in iraq another 20 years.
We should leave.
We should have our entire military hunting terrorist leaders, instead of trying to prop up an arab government that's going to become more "radical islam" than anything under saddam.
Osama wants us to stay...for that reason alone, we should leave.
If you're not for leaving iraq, you support the terrorists.
2007-08-03 01:56:35
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
5⤋
No. Petraeus is going to report progress no matter what is happening on the ground. It's already been leaked that he's going to recommend that the US troops stay at their current level through the spring of 2009.
2007-08-03 01:57:02
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
4⤋
No. Its still a fantasy/ sand castle. . Bush's war is America's greatest foreign policy blunder in history.
I can't believe anything from this government anyway. The White House politicizes everything and has no credibility.
2007-08-03 02:00:46
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋