2007-11-25 14:01:15 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I don't think there is any real military plan or training Iraqi soldiers at all. Iraq never really had much problems with Al Qaeda before.
2007-11-25 14:13:06 · update #1
What is the job?
2007-11-25 14:17:27 · update #2
Its funny. In the US we can train a fresh faced kid right out of High school in 18 weeks how to go to Iraq and do the job before them.
Yet in 4 years they can not train any troops.
If the Iraqis don't feel its worth fighting for why should we?
We will only leave Iraq when we start a war with Iran. That way King George will not go down in History as losing in Iraq he will go down in History as redeploying the troops to something more important. This should be no surprise he did it with Afghanistan.
2007-11-26 06:34:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
More like we can't leave because it's still bad. The fact that it's getting better is reason to stay. If was bad and not getting better, you could argue it's pointless to stay if it won't get better and I'd agree. At the same time, if the goal is to get Iraq to be in good shape, and progress is being made towards it, it behooves me to find it logical that we should leave. Just wait till it's good and it's over! Then they can come home and everything is fine, cake and punch for all.
2007-11-26 12:12:49 · answer #2 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are a thinking person, my friend. Now, let us see what the flag-wavers and the bullies, who need authority figures, have to say.
Here is the bottom line that even the mindless know now: Iraq had no WMD's and no Iraqi flew into 911 Towers. (One of which was not hit, but fell down anyway...google bldg#7)
2007-11-25 22:07:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
No matter what we will not leave Iraq until after Bush has left the White House so that all the idiots can then blame the new president for the mess that Iraq will be.
2007-11-25 22:10:13 · answer #4 · answered by walyank 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
It is getting better, but we must finish the job. There still are terrorists there and need to be rooted out. Also, the Iraqi army, though getting better, is not fully prepared to deal with insurgents as well.
2007-11-25 22:05:12 · answer #5 · answered by mustagme 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Same concept in either event - not leaving before the job is done. And we *could* leave at any time; the question is whether we *should*. Good thing you weren't around for Iwo Jima or the Battle of the Bulge...
2007-11-25 22:05:32 · answer #6 · answered by dukefenton 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
We're not leaving for the same reason since 2003. Iraq has to be able to defend itself.
What part of that is so hard to grasp?
2007-11-25 22:04:44 · answer #7 · answered by Philip McCrevice 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
You are a typical Clinton worshiper,don't ever finish anything. It's quite obvious your pants arn't filled with smarts.
You only leave some thing when the job is done. When they can defend themselves then we'll leave not before then.
2007-11-25 23:06:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
You can't leave because then the real problems would appear.
2007-11-25 22:05:31 · answer #9 · answered by Edge Caliber 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The US is beginning a gradual drawdown of troops. It was just reported today - good timing.
I also noticed a political cartoon in today's paper asking the same inane question. Is this where you get your material?
2007-11-25 22:06:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋