2006-07-22 06:37:34 · 10 answers · asked by Ethan M 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
All liberals think that, huh? Well, I'm usually labeled a liberal by people towing the Republican party line and I don't think that. I think the 'Pottery Barn Rule' that Colin Powell mentioned applies to Iraq--"You break it, you buy it." We certainly broke it. I personally believe we owe it to the Iraqis to try and help them through the mess we've made there. Also, we now have to stay there to make sure it doesn't become the terrorist stronghold it never had been before.
How many petty criminals operate on the block where a mob boss lives? The answer is none. That's how Iraq was before we took down Saddam. Terrorists didn't have any purchase there because Saddam didn't want any destabilizing influences. He wouldn't have just arrested terrorists--he would have tortured and killed anybody building any sort of power structure there outside of his own. That's not to say Saddam was good. He was a murderous bastard. However, for the purposes of keeping terrorists under control he was a positive godsend. Now that anarchy reigns in Iraq it does have the potential to be a terrorist hotbed.
Saddam's iron rule is also part of why Iraq is now a huge mess. For over 30 years Saddam had absolute control over Iraq--except for the Kurds, whom he mercilessly killed and suppressed whenever possible. Saddam favored the Sunni minority but he kept Iraq a secular state--at gunpoint--and wouldn't tolerate sectarian violence. We walked in there and thought that whatever tensions Saddam had kept locked down would just stay that way. Wrong.
Some people do say that we should pull out and let things sort themselves out. Some people say that the Iraqis will never come up with a working government and take care of their own security until we take the training wheels off. Those are the proposals I've heard for pulling out. That might be valid but like I say we've got a 'liberal' obligation to not run out on the Iraqis. It's also in our interest to see that they form a 'liberal' democracy, and not a 'conservative' theocracy. If you know anything about what these terms mean--besides "conservative good, liberal bad" you'll know I'm not just pulling them out of my ***.
The only common 'liberal' view I know of about Iraq was that it was a big mistake to go there and that Bush and company lied to get us there. Don't expect anyone to forget that, even with questions like this one that try and somehow shift blame again back to your favorite whipping boys. Won't work. America will stay and do the best it can to clean up the mess your man Bush made but nobody is going to forget who got us there.
2006-07-22 21:43:04 · answer #1 · answered by Song M 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's important to realize that liberals don't all think the same thing and certainly not all liberals want to pull all troops out of Iraq.
However, if we pulled all of the troops out of Iraq, we would likely see something similar what happened after the Soviets pulled out of Afganistan and we stopped helping the country.
2006-07-22 13:52:04 · answer #2 · answered by creative 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not much different that what is happening now. One of religious factions would gain control and civil war would result in a fight for power. Isn't that exactly what is happening now except the US is supporting one particular faction? I don't see democracy as we know it ever becoming successful in any islamic country and we are naive to believe it can. Probably the best we could ever hope for is something like Saudi Arabia where they have a few democratic principles in place but by and large the country is run with a ruling class monarchy.
2006-07-22 13:46:50 · answer #3 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
al queda would set up training camps, wage war upon the new government in Iraq and eventually win the support of a feared nation. It might take 3 to 5 years but eventually al queda would be strong enough to hit America again - and they would.
2006-07-22 13:41:26 · answer #4 · answered by netjr 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not all liberals favor a complete pull out, but a time table to show that we have an exit strategy, which of course, we dont.
Personally, I believe that the people need to fight it out.
2006-07-22 13:41:28 · answer #5 · answered by Greg P 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be chaos and run by a new Butcher of Baghdad (al-Sadr) while the US would arm Iraq with chemical and biological weapons.
Sorry my bad. That's what Iraq is today.
2006-07-22 14:37:08 · answer #6 · answered by Edward K 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We'd be Isolationists and the terrorists would run rampant over the middle east and probably further. I guess people haven't heard of Chamberlain's "Peace in our time" agreements with Hitler. He thought the peace agreements were a joke and it was much harder and more people lost their lives when we finally had to defeat him.
2006-07-22 13:43:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the terrorists would just come here and make the problem bigger
violence does solve things and world peace is just a fantasy that people with their heads in clouds fantasize over
2006-07-22 13:43:27 · answer #8 · answered by lyra 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
then the who world would love us and we would never get attacked again.
2006-07-22 13:43:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be a disaster.
2006-07-22 14:20:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋