Note: I'm not for leaving Iraq immediately cause thats not practical.
2007-08-18 02:18:27 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Did you really expect a good answer for this question? It did bring out the radicals and the blind followers.
2007-08-18 02:45:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are intelligent enough to realize we do not get to set a policy to end the war in Iraq. We will not do what would be necessary to accomplish it. Our policy is to do our best to contain and guide. The benefits of this effort if successful are world changing the consequences of failing could set the stage for a third world war.
I wish I was the wise man that could give you a definitive answer to what to do but I can't. What I can tell you is that the mind set of the Mid-East must be changed and military action may be a better solution than political shuffling. We have had 60 some years of political solutions that have lead us to where we are. If we simply confront radicals with force we might find that it is the language that is best understood .
2007-08-18 10:25:32 · answer #2 · answered by Locutus1of1 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
By asking what is his policy you are assuming he has one. By his own actions that assumption would fall a bit short. It is like I keep asking and never have gotten an answer to how do we know when we have won? No one can define win. Frankly I think he is going to leave it for the next president to clean up.
2007-08-18 11:00:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
at the end of war Bush policy is that to take petrole from iraq, if irqi agree bush please withdraw enemy from our country we will agree to give u petrole he will easily withdraw his enemy from the iraq. Because u know America was the best friend of iraq in past, when saddam enemy fight with iran. He fully cooprate to iraqi on that time, but Bush goverment want more petrol from iraq he is not agree, then battle was started
2007-08-18 11:07:37 · answer #4 · answered by khan1974rashid 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Postpone troop withdrawal until he can readily blame someone else, preferably a democrat. As long as dems win in 2008, then we withdraw troops, then cons position themselves to say "told you so" and win big again in 2012. It's the only way to salvage themselves from the Bush disaster.
Need to get this out there so you all know just what they're up to should it come to pass.
ADDED NOTE: If he says he has a plan but he will not reveal it, given his track record, that's the same to me as not having a plan at all. Long since given up believing anything GWB says.
2007-08-18 09:34:04 · answer #5 · answered by ash 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
He wants to hear from those over there, not just listen to politicians running for office. He realizes that the ones fighting are the best to determine our course, and they are so far reporting progress with the surge, which appears to upset some, who will probably give me a thumbs down for stating it.
2007-08-18 09:35:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Kick the can down the road, pass it off to the next President. Go home to Crawford and shred documents which show him in a bad light. Avoid newspapers and TV. In other words, he won't think about it once he's out of office, and so the war will end for him, if not in reality.
2007-08-18 09:21:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
Wait for 2009.
2007-08-18 09:21:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Defeat the enemy. Get the Iraq government to take over defense of the country and policing the citizens.
2007-08-18 09:22:59 · answer #9 · answered by regerugged 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
I think we should use the same policy that we use to end some of the entitlement and social programs that we have. Or do we have a policy to end those?
2007-08-18 09:22:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋