PDF said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
PDF said:
Reason for troops in Iraq for a 100 years.
If we "win the war" and Iraq becomes a succesful democracy and a ally then we would want to protect them. A US force in a counry means to the world not to mess with that country and to stop any uprising that may rise up. So we would keep troops there to protect them.
You know the way you worded it. If you meant that you could easily say McCain wants to keep tropps in South Korea but you couldnt because then it would send that same mix up message. |
We shouldn't have toops in Iraq or Korea or anywhere else at this point, ally or not, its far too expensive, unless the other countries wish to pay us to have a military prescense in their country I see no reason to waste our money, when we are running a massive debt, partially due to huge military expenses, cutting military spending should be a goal of the next administration |
Then why did you not say, Obama wants to keep troops in South Korea for a 100 years??? |
Well to be fair Obama wants to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years.
In a debate he admitted that he would keep a small task force in Iraq to be deployed to take out terrorists in Iraq and surrounding areas.
Hillary Clinton chided him for even keeping that many troops in Iraq.
He responed that it wasn't reasonable to not keep some troops in the area... and Hillary argued that it's fine to have troops in the area but not Iraq. (showing to me that Hillary is just saying whatever to get elected. Quibbling and trying to stick him over a small task force.)
It was one of those MSNBC debates. I want to say the one where they were all sitting at the table.
