2006-07-06 00:50:34 · 8 answers · asked by chris w 1 in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
The real question is why he sent them in, knowing he didn't have a plan, and that by destroying the only government they had that they would be left in chaos.
Unfortunately, now that we are in there, leaving without getting a replacement international military force (that might actually keep the peace better than we are) will only cause more issues.
2006-07-06 02:39:46 · answer #1 · answered by John J 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The mere presence of US troops in Iraq is not causing suffering to the Iraqis. It is not the US soldiers who are driving car bombs in to crowded markets, it is Iraqis killing Iraqis. Saddam Hussein used to like to take entire villages and gas them. The mass graves are still being discovered. Would you say mass gassings were better and caused less suffering?
Iraqis must solve the problem of "religious" fanatics in their own way. This is their culture and something they have brought upon themselves.
The real solution would be to split the country up into three; one area for Kurds, one for Sunnis, and another for Shites. Iraq is not a real country. It was an arbitrary entity created in one of the last spasms of British colonialism. Only a strong dictator held it together so far, much like Yugoslavia, and in the absence of that will tend to fall into civil war and break apart.
US soldiers are not causing any of this.
2006-07-06 08:07:18 · answer #2 · answered by Kokopelli 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because if the soldiers leave while things are as they are, a new dictator will soon take over and put the Iraqi citizens in the same horrible position they were in with Saddam. The people there are willing to suffer to gain freedom. Freedom is never free.
2006-07-10 19:23:13 · answer #3 · answered by purplewings123 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The suffering the Iraqis are experiencing now is nothing like it would be if we just left it to the multiple factions that wish to take control of the country. The problem is not Bush keeping us there, it is the liberal media feeding their own agenda to the public as opposed to the real news.
2006-07-06 07:56:43 · answer #4 · answered by Teufel 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oil. you never seen america in Rwanda during the genocide. Did you? Nope. they didn't have oil but hey guess what Iraq does. And what does that mean. Yeaup u guessed it cheaper oil with less restrictions. Hes also there I think because Saddam threatened to kill his father when he was in power. A Little retribution maybe.
2006-07-06 09:52:23 · answer #5 · answered by Ashley Y 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sunk costs, a logical fallacy. He thinks pulling them out now will mean that the soldiers who have died so far will have died for nothing. He had to leave them in the hope of pulling off some sort of victory that will allow him to say that their deaths were in some way "worth it". But no matter what is done now, those soldiers are gone and can't be brought back.
2006-07-06 07:58:56 · answer #6 · answered by Miss_M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
this question really needs to be retired
2006-07-06 08:36:47 · answer #7 · answered by Hafeman 5000 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
cos he is a dick-wad
2006-07-06 07:55:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋