Are We Obligated to Finish What We've Started In Iraq? 70 replies

Please wait...

marvinmatthew

Tech is where you'll find me..

50 XP

13th April 2005

0 Uploads

3,627 Posts

0 Threads

#1 12 years ago

I think that in answering this question, we must ask ourselves the question, 'is it reasonaly possible to create a stable government in Iraq?'

I personally don't think that this is possible (creating a stable government). So I wonder, what's the point in staying?

This really parallels Vietnam War, as we had done all that we thought that we could/do to help South Vietnam, and pulled out even though we knew that they're were almost certainly going to be crushed by the North Vietnamise Army.

This question came up in my AP Government class today.




czech speacial forces

I pretend I'm cooler than AzH

50 XP

3rd September 2005

0 Uploads

3,369 Posts

0 Threads

#2 12 years ago

we should have never been there. and if we were gonna do it anyway, we should have done it the right way. right now i dount think we should pull out, we al ready started this stupid shit and spent so much money there we might as well see it through. but to win there i think we need more troops in iraq. somewhere like 500,000 troops would completly secure the country, and i mean a large show of force for every part of the country. the more troops, the better. now 1 million troops in iraq would have prob have no problems with insurgents. we have 150,000 troops there now.




marvinmatthew

Tech is where you'll find me..

50 XP

13th April 2005

0 Uploads

3,627 Posts

0 Threads

#3 12 years ago
czech speacial forceswe should have never been there. and if we were gonna do it anyway, we should have done it the right way. right now i dount think we should pull out, we al ready started this stupid shit and spent so much money there we might as well see it through. but to win there i think we need more troops in iraq. somewhere like 500,000 troops would completly secure the country, and i mean a large show of force for every part of the country. the more troops, the better. now 1 million troops in iraq would have prob have no problems with insurgents. we have 150,000 troops there now.

That idea might work, if it could be implimented. But, it would a)likely need the draft to restarted, which will happen. And b) it couldn't absoultey guarente that things wouldn't get bad after we had left.




RadioactiveLobster Forum Admin

Jeff is a mean boss

565,402 XP

28th July 2002

0 Uploads

53,121 Posts

1,330 Threads

#4 12 years ago

marvinmatthewI think that in answering this question, we must ask ourselves the question, 'is it reasonaly possible to create a stable government in Iraq?'[/quote]

It is possible, it just takes time. There are muslims that want freedom, its the kooks that present the problem

marvinmatthew I personally don't think that this is possible (creating a stable government). So I wonder, what's the point in staying?

Regardless of whether you think we should be there or not, you dont go in and then pull out before finishing

[quote=marvinmatthew] This really parallels Vietnam War, as we had done all that we thought that we could/do to help South Vietnam, and pulled out even though we knew that they're were almost certainly going to be crushed by the North Vietnamise Army.

From a militaristic standpoint, we were winning vietnam, it wasnt until we started to pull out, that they north gained the advantage


If there is no image, Mikey broke something...



Force Recon

Semper fidelis

50 XP

10th July 2004

0 Uploads

2,637 Posts

0 Threads

#5 12 years ago
BushThe Middle East, he said, faced "terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5337080.stm

look People I have no idea what he is talking about.Iran?they don't have nuclear weapons.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#6 12 years ago

They're making them. They even admit they want nuclear arms.




masked_marsoe VIP Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#7 12 years ago

You got a source for that?




Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#8 12 years ago

The answer is very simple, regardless of wether you think it was right to move in or not now that you are their you will have to restore peace and stability. If you brake something you will have to fix it. It will be hard and cost you a lot but you must feel the consequences of your actions for better or worse. You can't just pull out and say "oopsie we kinda made it a mess now, so uhm yeah" and make a run for it.

So yes you will have to finish what you started.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#9 12 years ago

Where they openly state that they want nuclear arms? Not directly. But anyone who reads Ahmadinejad's quotes on Israel, the US, and the rest of the middle east, then factors in the fact that Iran is one of the leading oil producing nations in the world, and it becomes clear that Iran doesn't need nuclear energy.

Even the EU-3 agree that Iran is going for nuclear weapons, and if you get France and Germany to realize that, then it's rather obvious what is really going on.

But now, let's get back on topic.

To cut and run now would not only mean failure of our greater goals, but it would devalue the sacrifices made by those who fought, and died, for this cause. We have to stay the course, no matter how painful it may be, or may become.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#10 12 years ago

For which statement?