English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The Iraqis can run their own nation just fine. We removed Saddam, we did our job, it's time to bring our soldiers home to peace and safety.

The Republicans want to stay another 5-10 years, even though there is no victory plan.

2007-10-13 02:29:38 · 35 answers · asked by Villain 6 in Politics & Government Politics

35 answers

Bush is crazy we went in there with the intention of finding weapons! So we find nothing just a corrupt government, instead of looking dumb we meddle with other countries politics and now have caused a civil war.

2007-10-13 02:33:17 · answer #1 · answered by ME® 5 · 1 6

Some of you answering this question would be singing a different tune if terrorists were here in the USA detonating bombs and killing dozens of citizens.

For whatever the reason, we are Iraq now and must do everything we possibly can to try to stabilize the situation. If you look at the Middle Eastern history it more than likely won't work. Middle Eastern countries hate the western world and hate each other just as bad.

Having said that, personally I don't think that Afghanistan or Iraq ever posed a threat to the USA.

The real threats will come from Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, after all, 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

Things that make you go hmmmmmm.

2007-10-13 02:50:14 · answer #2 · answered by Bubba 6 · 3 1

To Republicans who always try to denigrate the plan to withdraw our troops from Iraq with the euphemism of “Cutting and Running”, as if the action is akin to cowardice, I always ask three questions:

1. Do you support the troops?

2. Are you pro-life?

3. Are you for family values



In almost rote fashion they answer in the affirmative to both questions. Then, I proceed to say that logic dictates that withdrawal of our troops accomplish all three of the above. By withdrawing our troops, you are supporting them in that you are doing what they most desire, which is returning back to their loved ones. By bring our troops home, you are promoting a pro-life agenda, in that you are preserving life, mainly the lives our men in the armed services. Finally you are cultivating the strength of the family, because by returning fathers and mothers, who are soldiers, home to their families, you are returning our military service men and women to do their most important job, a job that is even more important than picking up a rifle, and that is raising up decent and law abiding citizens for the next generation.

This pro-war stance only benefits big business and is counterproductive to the aims of supporting the troops, promoting a culture of life, and fortifying the family. I wish Republicans would see how contradictory their platforms are, and start getting the priorities straight.

2007-10-13 15:11:01 · answer #3 · answered by Lawrence Louis 7 · 0 0

It is simple, If we "Cut and Run" as you've put it.
We would virtually be handing Osama Bin Laden a
Blank Check . With all the Oil Revenue Profits. Think of
how he could export his brand of Terrorism all over the
world. We should continue to support the Iraqi Govt because
the collapse of it will be the chaos we will not be able to prevent
from coming to our shores.

2007-10-13 06:50:59 · answer #4 · answered by "MAIKOO".... 3 · 0 0

Since the US began it's war in Iraq:

47 countries' have reestablished their embassies in Iraq.
The Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people.

3100 schools have been renovated,
364 schools are under rehabilitation
263 new schools are now under construction
and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq.

Iraq's higher educational structure now consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, all currently operating.

25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program.

The Iraqi Navy is operational.

It's not much but it includes 5 - 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.

Iraq's Air Force consists of three operational
squadrons which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers.

Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion.

Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers.

There are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks.

There are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq. They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.

96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations.

4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October.

There are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq
and phone use has gone up 158%

Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations 180 newspapers and 10 television stations.

The Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004.

(The above facts are verifiable on the Department of Defense web site.)

-----

So what is all this whining I hear about no victoy plan!

There is much more work to be done and it must be done the way it's being done now.

2007-10-13 02:32:21 · answer #5 · answered by Double O 6 · 5 3

I think it would be appropriate that you identify yourself as a Marxist so that unsuspecting users . . especially the younger ones would know in advance where this type of 'logic' comes from .
It's not a matter of 'cut and run' or 'stay and die' . Misleading on your part . Those are not the choices .
Also misleading is your statement " Republicans want to stay another 5-10 yrs" . . . . . not the truth . Even the Democratic Presidential Candidates know that we'll be there in force till at least 2013 . And they made it publicly clear .

Either way you're fighting 'no mans battle ' now . We're there . The surge is working fantastically , and we're staying no matter what you and other Marxists say or think .

2007-10-13 02:36:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4 3

there is no perfect attitude! it may sound merciless rather to the peace loving crowd yet, a properly placed bunker buster on the city that produces the subsequent sniper or IED ensuing in a American death. i imagine it really is what fanatical islam will relate too. that is likely the in basic terms attitude although the US received't do it and we will have more suitable casualties contained in the top. finally, some president will pull us out and look like a dummy for doing it.

2016-10-21 02:15:51 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Well, you really have to look at what is likely to happen if we leave or if we stay.
If we stay, then our troops continue to die in vain for a country whose government has no chance in hell of succeeeding.
If we leave, then Iran moves in and takes our place. They would likely do ethnic cleansing and kill every Sunni and Kurd in the country. There might then be a Sunni country, Saudi Arabia, that would oppose that and start a war with Iran. This would lead to an all out regional holy war. This would affect us at the pump. Oil prices would sky rocket. $200 a barrel would not be farfetched. This just gives you a view of the Catch 22 the US is involved in right now. Its kinda ironic now to think it but a tyranical dictator in a country that didn't affect the US at all doesn't seem that bad now.

2007-10-13 02:37:38 · answer #8 · answered by jm42445 5 · 2 3

I believe that a cun and run is always better then stay and die. This war has really killed the GOP (both my parents were GOP at the beginning of the war and now they're pretty againsted it). If we stay and die not only will we kill a good percent of our military, we would look like the biggest dumbasses to other countries and we would loose some power and influence (not that we haven't already). I don't understand this country. Much of the developed world is working toward peace and the most powerful country in the world wants to destroy one of the poorest.

2007-10-13 02:58:26 · answer #9 · answered by *unknownuser* 4 · 3 3

There is a big difference between the warfare we engaged in during WWII and the warfare of today.
All out warfare during WWII leveled every city in Germany and most in Japan. Tens of millions of civilians were killed and left homeless. The entire populations of these countries were pounded into submission in 4 years of all out war. The will to fight was completely beaten out of them.
Not so in the invasion of Iraq. That invasion was surgical and cause little death and destruction on the civilian population. The Iraqis were not beaten into submission.
When invading a country, you not only need to topple the government, you must conquer the people as well. Under the present rules of engagement, that process is going to take a very long time. The Iraqi people will not settle down until they feel enough is enough.

2007-10-13 02:57:37 · answer #10 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 1 4

Why not just 'leave' and split the planned milatary budget for next year with Iraq for reconstruction, to the extent they get their act together enough to LET us leave before December 2008?

2007-10-13 05:09:39 · answer #11 · answered by DAR 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers