No, it's efforts should be given as many troops and time as needed.
14%13 Votes
Eventually, the troops should be given more time to withdraw than Obama proposes.
40%37 Votes
Yes, the troops should withdraw according to Obama's plan (by 2011).
38%35 Votes
Yes, the coalition should withdraw now.
9%8 Votes
No, it's efforts should be given as many troops and time as needed.
14%13 Votes
Eventually, the troops should be given more time to withdraw than Obama proposes.
40%37 Votes
Yes, the troops should withdraw according to Obama's plan (by 2011).
38%35 Votes
Yes, the coalition should withdraw now.
Male
Female
6%3 Votes
No, it's efforts should be given as many troops and time as needed.
15%8 Votes
Eventually, the troops should be given more time to withdraw than Obama proposes.
43%23 Votes
Yes, the troops should withdraw according to Obama's plan (by 2011).
37%20 Votes
Yes, the coalition should withdraw now.
Results by Country
Results by Voter Type
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Yes, we should all withdraw and let the Afghans govern themselves. If "the West" totally pulls out of the Middle East we can see if the people whom we call "the infidels" are being straight with us when they say that is all they want. If they are honest people we will be better off, if they are dishonest people we can always return and next time not listen to *any* of their stipulations. Their proposals make sense to me. The "West" really does not belong there. The British discovered this fact many years ago: Canada, Australia, India, South Africa, and other places formerly under British rule are now independent and are doing much better without a British presence. Maybe when "the West" pulls out of the Middle East we will discover it is much easier to have a productive diplomatic relationship with them than it will ever be when we maintain an undesired presence in their lands.
You know, you made perfect sense to me until I started thinking about Africa. The West pulled out of most of Africa and most of Africa collapsed.
Even Ethiopia, with it's 3,000 year old culture collapsed. South Africa went through a painful civil war and Egypt became just another Muslim country. And they are the only two that didn't collapse.
Wasn't Africa not in great shape before "the West" arrived? When "the West" left were they in any worse shape than they were in before "the West's" arrival? And "the West" enslaved millions of Africans -- were they better off for the enslavement? Was "the West" actually good for Africa? Even if they became better off has little to do with "the West's" presence in the Middle East.
Africa was in the same shape as the Americas in 1500, except Egypt and Ethiopia. The Americas are better in every measurable way than Africa. By far the largest difference between the two is the arrival and control of the Americas by Christian Europeans.
So you may be right. Without Christian Europeans to run things, the Middle East could very well remain in the Dark Ages. I hope you are wrong about that though. The US, UK, France and other allies don't have any desire to run, colonize, or move to Afghanistan or Iraq. Someday, they are going to have to learn to govern themselves.
We must learn from the Vietnam War, if u start a war u should end it or else the desired effects dont come out. we should definetly stay in Iraq and Afghanistan until we have bin laden
Yes, we should all withdraw and let the Afghans govern themselves. If "the West" totally pulls out of the Middle East we can see if the people whom we call "the infidels" are being straight with us when they say that is all they want. If they are honest people we will be better off, if they are dishonest people we can always return and next time not listen to *any* of their stipulations. Their proposals make sense to me. The "West" really does not belong there. The British discovered this fact many years ago: Canada, Australia, India, South Africa, and other places formerly under British rule are now independent and are doing much better without a British presence. Maybe when "the West" pulls out of the Middle East we will discover it is much easier to have a productive diplomatic relationship with them than it will ever be when we maintain an undesired presence in their lands.
You know, you made perfect sense to me until I started thinking about Africa. The West pulled out of most of Africa and most of Africa collapsed.
Even Ethiopia, with it's 3,000 year old culture collapsed. South Africa went through a painful civil war and Egypt became just another Muslim country. And they are the only two that didn't collapse.
Wasn't Africa not in great shape before "the West" arrived? When "the West" left were they in any worse shape than they were in before "the West's" arrival? And "the West" enslaved millions of Africans -- were they better off for the enslavement? Was "the West" actually good for Africa? Even if they became better off has little to do with "the West's" presence in the Middle East.
Africa was in the same shape as the Americas in 1500, except Egypt and Ethiopia. The Americas are better in every measurable way than Africa. By far the largest difference between the two is the arrival and control of the Americas by Christian Europeans.
So you may be right. Without Christian Europeans to run things, the Middle East could very well remain in the Dark Ages. I hope you are wrong about that though. The US, UK, France and other allies don't have any desire to run, colonize, or move to Afghanistan or Iraq. Someday, they are going to have to learn to govern themselves.
We must learn from the Vietnam War, if u start a war u should end it or else the desired effects dont come out. we should definetly stay in Iraq and Afghanistan until we have bin laden
You are right. I assumed that point and did not make it clear. Thanks.