What do you think most Americans would pick?
I'm pretty sure the present situation, a long struggle with ups and downs, would be the last choice for many.
So, what do we do?
2007-09-26 06:03:20 · 10 answers · asked by American citizen and taxpayer 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That is an either all or nothing type of situation and is not indicative of the actual situation here in the Middle East. We may not have had the pleasure of choosing this long struggle, no it was thrust upon us on 9/11, but we do bear the burden of seeing it through to the end. Even if you’re from the "Iraq posed no threat" camp, you can not possibly believe that retreating from the field of battle will do anything less than embolden the very enemy who has already struck at our homeland with no provocation. It is sad that we have lost over 3500 Soldiers to this struggle (I know more than a few myself), but in terms other noble causes this nation has undertaken over the decades, we are WELL ahead of the curve.
So what do we do? Well, it seems that we have little or no choice in the matter. Most of our politicians see this, that's why last year, when Republicans called for a vote in the house to immediately withdraw from Iraq, it only received about 5% of the vote. Yet these same politicians who will not vote to pull out of Iraq immediately went on to run on platforms that promised just that. Why? Because despite their knowledge of what is capable, prudent and in the best interest of our nation, they know that some Americans do not care for prudence, and chose to pander to that vote. Now, the word is mum on just why they haven't delivered their immediate withdrawal as promised. Some on this forum blame it on partisan politics, but the real situation is that even these politicians can not get past that one defining moment when they voted "nay" to immediately withdrawal from Iraq.
Regardless of if you believe we should have invaded Iraq in the first place or not, I beg and urge to not let your disdain for that decision to cloud your judgment of the future. We have tightened our national security since 9/11 and more and more civilians are becoming hyper vigilant, but this is a world struggle. This can be easily demonstrated by the MANY terrorist attacks that have taken place in other nations since 9/11; London, two bombings and at least one foiled plot, the Madrid bombing, the Germans foiling a group of terrorists, just to name a few. Leaving Iraq prematurely will only result in more of these, not fewer. These people do not want to negotiate, they want us dead. They do not want a peace treaty, they want our nation destroyed.
2007-09-26 06:30:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That depends on what the definition of "swift victory" is.
True victory means the war is over and any troops we leave in the region no longer come under regular attack. I have read things on these pages like "turn the troops loose to do their job and they'll be home by christmas", or "turn the whole place to glass and shoot anyone who tries to chip their way out", and the like. I hope I don't have to explain why those are not viable options.
You have formulated the conundrum quite well. Here's its terrible corollary:
If the only choice is between "swift victory" and "immediate withdrawal"; and if "swift victory" has no broadly acceptable definition, what should we do?
Personally , I think Americans are leaning towards withdrawal, and regret that we ever went in; or at least regret that we went in with the leadership we had, and not the leadership we wished we could have had....
2007-09-26 13:14:33 · answer #2 · answered by oimwoomwio 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Swift victory till the Iraqs take controll>
2007-09-26 13:22:43 · answer #3 · answered by 45 auto 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
We withdraw. Americans do not have the stomach for a long protracted war, no matter what the cause. The way to fight terrorism is quite simple. We withdraw and provide strike forces that every time a terrorist event happens we strike the terrorist supporting nations with an air strike, followed by ground forces killing their soldiers. Sooner not later, they will get the message that don't mess with the US. The concept is guerrilla warfare with the biggest and baddest guerrilla.
2007-09-26 13:14:22 · answer #4 · answered by libsticker 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Why people like Debra assume we don't want troops home is beyond me.
Yes, I would like the troops home (especially since I have loved ones there) but I'd like them home in victory, not with their tails tucked between their legs because some d@mn politican wouldn't let them do their job.
2007-09-26 13:23:17 · answer #5 · answered by time_wounds_all_heelz 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Greetings. only moral answer is to stop committing the crimes with our illegal occupation. immediate withdrawal. we created the problem there. but our continuing to occupy and continue to kill civilians will not solve anything in the short run or the long run either. get the blazes out and stop committing the crime. Is like asking if your raping someone what should you do? continue raping because your victim enjoys it, or stop raping and take the knife away from her throat? is a choice.
2007-09-26 13:10:02 · answer #6 · answered by Rich M 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
The first one didnt happen, so ,to save lives I'll take the 2nd.
2007-09-26 13:06:41 · answer #7 · answered by Jim W 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
what the heck do you mean by "victory"? What do we want from Iraq anyway? What is there to accomplish?
2007-09-26 13:08:59 · answer #8 · answered by MrPotatoHead 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
People, with the exception of a few Republican sheep.. want our troops home. There is no glory in dying for oil!
2007-09-26 13:08:56 · answer #9 · answered by Debra H 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
we will win
2007-09-26 13:11:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋