1. The internal drain on the economy would be alleviated somewhat and America could concentrate more on domestic affairs and improving the country.
2. A short civil war ending in a liberal dictatorship of pro-European/Chinese rather than American elements. It would bring stability though.
3. Oil prices would shoot above the 100$ mark per barrel but only while Iraqi Civil War is on unless foreign non American countries or UN can temporarily process the oil until the Iraqis are ready.
4. Our opinion of you is that you have very unwisely handled the situation and that should you pull out it would be a hint that wisdom is returning to your leadership. We in Europe would be relieved. Our diplomatic efforts are wasted with Islamic fundamentalism and American imperialism always at logger heads.
2006-06-17 05:59:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
1. Get better, as there would be less money being spent on the war.
2. Civil war and mass genocide. That would be a terrible mistake.
3. Go up, because those oil fields we have secured will no longer be. That would likely mean even less oil for world markets.
4. Not finishing a job we started would make us look worse than we do now.
Being pro or anti war is irrelevant. The real question should be: what is the most effective way to secure Iraq and let them take charge, so we can get out asap?
But now is too soon. Not only would it be the worst foreign policy blunder the US has ever made,(even worse than going into Iraq in the first place on bad intelligence), but it would create a massive humanitarian crisis.
2006-06-17 11:59:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by theswitch3 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
We have pretty much ruined Iraq. They are in a state of anarchy now. Chances are we will do the same thing we did in Viet Nam, try to cut our losses and get out. That will result in a possible civil war in Iraq and the rise of another dictator or terrorist government. Our economy would improve because we would not be spending billions on the war. Oil prices will not come down. We need to find an alternative fuel. That should have been done a long time ago. It will take many years to regain any respect from other countries. This administration has all but ruined us.
2006-06-17 11:45:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by notyou311 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
1. Since economies are the sum total of individuals' decision-making, the significance of oil lies in maintaining a paradigm that facilitates the decisions that result in the generation of wealth. Uncertainty creates a sense of restraint. When people hold back from making decisions, the economy slows. Therefore, if the US pulls out of Iraq, thereby making a statement that it is no longer interested in enforcing its will towards stabilizing the middle east, the economy could suffer.
On the other hand, the expenditure of government money would shift from the military and our rate of debt accumulation may slow.
2. Iraq would be plunged into political instability. However, if self-determination is a sovereign right, then we must let it happen. We've done them the service of removing a "bad" government. We can only hope the next one will be better.
3. There is currently a relatively high level of uncertainty in global oil supplies. The changing order in the Middle East will not help. However, if it is in the Middle East's best interests to keep oil flowing, it will be in their best interests to address their own political stability.
I hope that Americans are now coming to grips with the full impacts of oil dependency. Hopefully, with our own lifestyles, we'll make decisions to minimize/eliminate this dependency.
4. I hope that such action would be interpreted as better superpower behavior.
2006-06-17 12:07:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by Marsh 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
the US economy will be fine pull out or no pull out.it is the economy of iraq that we should feel sorry for.the US has already spent what 130 billion $ on iraq? that much could have alleviated the plight of starving kids in africa and in the middle east.so if the real objective of the Bush administration is to help iraq and protect US interest at the same time then he sucks as a leader.but we all know that this is not the case. we know that bush is a cunning fellow. we know that the US generals support him all the way. so what's the real motivation? i think the US military wants to get rid of its old weapons to make way for the production of more advanced weapons. what would the US do with its old f 16s and bombs and missiles and bullets?surely the military wont just incinerate them so they said to one another hey let's make use of our toys what are theyre here for anyway? so whats the target? we can use it on iraq.thats a great idea let's do it.
2006-06-17 12:10:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
the us economy would be better off not spending $1.74billion per day http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
iraq is worse off than it was. women could work & wear modern clothes. all religions were welcome. you could get a drink & eat whatever you wanted. all weve done is take the vote (for sunni) & give it back not just to the to the shiites, but to the baath party. iraq should be on its own. 'beware entangling alliances'-george washington.
oil prices would plumit because of the competition (the problem in the 1st place). iraqs oil would have destroyed the bushs oil empire, saddam had to go.
other countries would be glad we came to our senses & started acting like usa instead of world police. 'beware entangling alliances'-george washington. fuok what other countries think anyway.
2006-06-17 12:40:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
1. The economy would sky rocket
2. Iraq would fall apart.
3. Not sure about that, probably stay the same.
4. Feel as if we are minding our business?
2006-06-17 11:41:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by face9202004 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
There most likely would be a civil war and possibly another country take them over. There would be even more deaths and chaos. The country is still in need of many basic needs, where we destroyed the infrastructure to the country.
2006-06-17 11:40:48
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Democrats would be WRONG again.
Democratic Pres Truman sent US troops to Korea, troops are still there and Democrats have yet to come up with an exit plan.
Democratic Pres Clinton sent US troops to Bosnia/Kosovo, troops are still there, again, Democrats have no exit plan. Clinton sent troops into Somalia to fight rebels trained by al-queda, he withdrew those troops and rebel warlords took over.
2006-06-17 12:02:28
·
answer #9
·
answered by askthetoughquestions 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
i think our troops need to stay in 4 the fact all of those troops died 4 nothing if u pull out now.... my hubby is there in iraq... sad to say i want him home sooo bad but i think it is best if all the soldiers stay till they finished with all of there missions... so they can teach the iraqi's how to stand up 4 themself sooo our u s soldiers don't have to do it 4 them..... GOD BLESS OUR TROOOPS........HOOAH!!!
PROUD ARMY WIFE
2006-06-17 11:46:58
·
answer #10
·
answered by Mickey 3
·
0⤊
0⤋