You can't do that. Peace might break out
2006-06-21 11:55:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by Ferret 5
·
1⤊
3⤋
It would show the world that we are no longer interested in stopping the terrorists from doing the evil things that they do. We are not allowing them to control the situation there by causing fear in those who do not have the power to do anything. Do you want to see another terrorist strike here in the U.S. I sure as hell dont. It is taking a long time for stability in the middle east. The fighting over there has been going on for a long while. If we leave too soon and not enough is done to suppress the terrorists, we will have another attack on U.S. soil. Guess what will happen? Troops will be on their way to the middle east yet again. Just support the troops for keeping us safe and protecting what we have here in our country.
2006-06-21 19:11:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by Scooter Monkey 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
There would be more terrorist attacks on the USA because the terrorists would view us a weak for backing down. Iraq would then become a haven for terrorists and other lowlifes to plot attacks against other countries. And the deaths of all of our soldiers would have been for absolutely nothing. I am for the war, yes I do feel sorry for the troops over there but they signed up for the military knowing that they may have to go to war. Keep the troops there!
2006-06-21 19:01:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by Matt 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
From those of us old enough to know, the same thing would happen all across the middle east that happened in southeast Asia when the U.S. pulled it's troops out of Vietnam. We'd have a blood-bath of unimagineable proportions like they had throughout Cambodia and Laos and Vietnam. You cry about deaths now?! You ain't seen nothing yet, till we pull our troops out of the middle east 'ASAP' as you say. You talk about brutality?! Honey, you ain't seen nothin' yet. And the media will only tell it to you when they can save face for having been behind all the "Bring the Troops Home" nonsense, and can make big bucks off of it in movies and television "specials". Oh, and I say this as my only son is over in Iraq for his second tour of duty, keeping America free so the media can lie it's *** off to you. Read GOOD reliable material, The WASHINGTON TIMES for example as opposed to the Washington Post. And check out the Media Research Center at www.MRC.org. Then you'll know what you REALLY need to know. My son will thank you too, when he comes home for some r&r on July 4th before he returns to Iraq on July 22nd or 23rd. And I will feel good that I redirected some of your young minds to what REALLY needs to be known. God Bless you.
2006-06-21 19:09:36
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
At this point it is hard to say. The current Iraqi government appears to be close to the point that it can defend itself.
My guess is that the current government would survive, but that the democratic process would suffer at least in the short term due to the extended need for marshall law and suppression of the terrorist factions in the country that would be required if we pulled all 130,000 of our troops out immediately.
2006-06-21 18:58:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by Chris L 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Since the Iraqi government is not fully established yet and their military and police forces are not fully manned and trained, the country would fall in days. The killings would escalate.
Most of the deaths in Iraq are caused by other Iraqis and terrorists from surrounding countries. The US military is not causing the bombings and is not the main target for these bombings anymore.
2006-06-21 18:57:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by davidmi711 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
OK,
The hard-lined Iranian Islamic regime supports someone like Al-Sadr and he his put in power. In a twist or irony and fate, Iran ends up in controlling the oil fields in Iraq. Remember in the eighties when we supported Saddam Hussein in his quest to take over the oil fields in Iran immediately following the Islamic Revolution?
Iran wants to rebuild the Persian empire and if they were in control of the oil fields in Iraq and Iran they would control enough oil to be able to bring the west to its knees. They would be a Nuclear and an Economic power who hates the United States.
In the end another 9/11 or major military conflict would be inevitable.
2006-06-21 19:09:53
·
answer #7
·
answered by 3rd parties for REAL CHANGE 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Shiites would murder the Suunis, the Suunis would suicide-bomb the Shiites, the Kurds in north of Iraq would break away to form their own republic, the Kurds in neighboring Turkey would break away to join them, Turkey would send in troops to quell the uprising, and then Al Qaeda would sneak in during the fray and set up shop. Hell, Iran might even get drawn into it. Can anybody say "apocolypse"?
2006-06-21 18:59:22
·
answer #8
·
answered by mikesglobal 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Going in was not unlike hitting a hornets nest with a baseball bat. Leaving before containing all those nasty bugs would not turn out well.
We shouldn't have ever hit the nest with a bat to begin with. There are other/better/less-messy ways to handle hornets.
2006-06-21 18:58:48
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Same thing that happened when the "peace protesters" forced us out of Vietnam. 2.2 million non communist South Vietnamese were killed by the North Vietnamese.
Hmmm, I guess the liberals were tired of protesting when the US was there because I never heard anything about the millions killed after we left.
2006-06-21 19:25:12
·
answer #10
·
answered by freetyme813 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well it's bound to happen eventually. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
There wasn't peace when we weren't there before, there won't be peace when we leave. American soldiers have made the Iraqi citizens life's so much better. But I guess ya'll don't hear that on your liberal news stations.
2006-06-21 18:57:35
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋