I like this question! I have been thinking it for months. We need to oust Maliki and get a true leader in there. One who can rally their troops and citizens. They need a George Washington. I've always been a fan of Petreaus' plan, but it won't work ifyou don't have a fair leader with charisma. Once you get one, the country will stabilize. You can begin pulling troops out after their new leader has atleast 1 year in office. The surge is actually an old military tactic that has been proven time and time again. Look into the actual details of what they are doing with the additional troops and it will make more sense. All they need is a "real" leader.
9/9 - Nick H - Your kind accuses cons of being cold. We (our congress) decided to come to the IRAQI's aid with a humanitarian agenda. But I'm sure I don't know what I'm talking about. Here's your proof http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:
2007-09-08 06:21:06
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
3⤋
I wonder if there is a great exit strategy for the war in Iraq? The hatred of these people and their corruption goes so deep, I wonder if anyone could govern them, short of some total dictatorship. I just finished a long book on the history of the occupation in Iraq, and that was the conclusion of the author. The Shia'a represent about 55% of the population, and are just waiting for true democracy to enforce centuries old hatred against the Sunnis, and nothing is going to stop that from happening.
2007-09-08 10:51:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by Steve C 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
WIN AT ALL COST.
And before the next full moon so the moon worshipers of Islam in Iran we attack and send the little man in his polyester suit mach moud amadimajad can meet The 12Th imam and the rest of Islam. China, Russia and Little Hugo as well. look out and the Libs you have no place to run and hide as well.
I am a right wing hate monger and you wimps on the left can call me what ever you want but I have a back bond and will never give up the red white and blue. No surrender and throw the Korans in the toilets and send bombs to Al Quida coated with pork and a kiss my republican Christan ASSS painted on the head of each missile with a pork face on it.
One more thing seeing the left is allies with osma Bin Laden and they take the same talking points.
Convert now to Christianity and republicans now while you can.
Sound like your words it is but I am giving it to you. You on the left are traitors.
2007-09-08 14:36:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
What are we worried about?
A Civil war if we leave now?
Take over of half or all of the country by a Al Qeada Supported Regime?
If it were for me, I would leave now and let them have it, Let them decide who is going to run the country and how, Look at the Islamic Countries all around, there is only one counrty with democracy or secular values which is loosing its status as we speak.
Once they decide who and how the country will run, we support the people in charge as we did for Pakistan.
Back in 1947, British just left India and Pakistan India decided to be a Democratic Country while Pakistan also decided to do that but in the last 60 Pakistan has seen only 12 years of Democracy and rest it was ruled by 6 dictators.
Leave from Iraq now and let the stupid people fight it out.
Once the Al Qeda is in Power and they have a open session Drop a 500MT Bomb.
2007-09-08 08:14:24
·
answer #4
·
answered by Thomas B 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
Pack up and redeploy 80k troops to Afghanistan and wipe out the Taliban and the opium fields that fund global jihad. 30k troops would stay in Kuwait while the rest come home for R&R.
Would strengthen Afghan economy and recruit spies from there. Afghan spies families would be granted US citizenship and perks. Would rotate 20k of the afghan redeployed troops home in 90 days and not redeploy them for a year. Would increase VA funding by 30% which includes the "Heroes Health Card" for Iraq/Afghan War vets.
Would fund $2 billion for alternative fuel projects to get completely off oil or greatly minimize use of it. It would be like the Manhantan project in WW-2.
Would point nukes at Iran while offering incentives to abandon nuke facilities. Iran would be made aware that if anything radioactive occurs in US, the first assumption is they are involved.
2007-09-08 08:33:00
·
answer #5
·
answered by Chi Guy 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
Bush's go out technique is to declare in Iraq until he's out of workplace, then turn the completed morass over to the subsequent President, then sit down in his compound in Crawford and ***** approximately how the hot guy is doing all of it incorrect. An go out technique is basically mandatory while you're making plans to go out. Bush isn't.
2016-10-18 08:12:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nick H has the right answer---except for the supplies---I
would leave them for the 2 factions who will need them to
continue with the Civil War which we interrupted for awhile !
Then we could carry more of our wounded back home
a little bit sooner !
I don't know if you could call it "strategy"----that has
been a much abused word "over here"---
The best strategy as in Vietnam would have been to
stay home where we belong !
When will we ever learn ?
Well--there's some hope with Hilary or Barack !
2007-09-08 06:33:55
·
answer #7
·
answered by ytellu 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
Keep the surge going, send in special forces to the trouble areas, ensure that the Iraq military has the best equipment available, and in the spring re-look at small force levels When troops are withdrawn make sure that any increase in sectarian or insurgent frighting is fully attacked with no political correctness let to restrict our forces as has been since day one of the fight!! By 2009 have a plan to have all forcees out.
2007-09-08 06:19:04
·
answer #8
·
answered by ALASPADA 6
·
2⤊
3⤋
Well this is a war of politics, not for Iraqi freedom (biggest lie ever sold). All reasons for being there have been proven false, so let's get out and protect our own borders. Let's stop this policing the world BS and get our troops home to their families instead of them coming home in body bags. Let them sort their problems, and maybe a workable partnership could be in the future instead of killing damn near 1million men, women and children in the name of peace.
2007-09-08 13:46:09
·
answer #9
·
answered by Ted S 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
i dont know but didnt we just create a bunch of homeless desparate people that will need taxpayers money to rebuild and get back on there feet, they will need free medical coverage, shetlers from the elements!!!
they are gonna need a lot more than the people are bitchin about givin our own citizens that need it!!!
i gueuss the homeless over there will be setting on the street corners with a sign that says " will work for oil!!!
2007-09-08 06:43:55
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋