As much as I wish we weren't there, we need to stay there for a little bit longer to try to stabilize the country. If we move out with the country in the condition it is in now, a new (militant, radical, etc.) government takes over and within a few years the country is full of newly minted terrorists ready to attack us.
2006-08-12 10:54:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Well, it depends how fast we want Iraq to fall into completely chaos... which I guess it already has. The problem is, I don't think most of us understand that Iraq was a post-colonial creation, where artificial borders were created without acknowledging who actually lived within those borders. Iraq had been able to hold itself together for all these decades, not because the people necessarily got along, but because they always had a dictatorial leader who ruled with an iron-fist. Not that that's no longer the case, each group wants to take control. In the end, I don't think that we understand that democracy may not take form in the way we imagined it will, and until we are willing to admit that, I don't think our troops will be coming home.
2006-08-12 10:54:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by nyanks27 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
If we did the country would fall apart and the men and women who have died and were affected by this invasion would have died for a scenario that never existed. It would be detrimental to us to leave now as the terrorists we are fighting would gain victory and get even more support from places that now don't support them. If we give in now it will only make the people we are fighting that much more powerful. We just need to get the job done over there which I think is still to set up a Democratic government in Iraq that supports the west and provides freedom and protection to its citizens. I just wish they would win already.
2006-08-12 10:54:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because we have a Nazi in the whitehouse, who is determined to control the world's largest stores of petroleum. He regards us as crusaders -- the rest of us would just like for the United States to be a beacon.... (The crusades in the 1100 and 1200 failed miserably -- this crusade will too....)Because he is nuts and thinks that we as a puny nation can cure the ills of the Middle East -- Ills and hatreds that date back 5000 years. Because the American people don't have enough guts to say enufffff is enuffff. (But they will come election day. That idiot and his cronies who are ripping all of us off will be out.... example. An absolute nobody beat a prowar candidate in New England!!!!!!!!!!!!! last week in a primary. Bush will go down as the absolute worst crook this nation has ever had -- (worse even than U.S .Grant, who though not a crook, had some friends who used him to get rich.) Answer your question????
2006-08-12 10:57:43
·
answer #4
·
answered by April 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
That's not a part of the plan. The Illuminati want world war 3, and nuclear weapons used, so they can thin down world population by at least 2/3. Otherwise there would just be too many of us useless eaters to control.
2006-08-12 11:00:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by oceansoflight777 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
See I'm torn. My hubby is in Iraq right now and I would do anything to have him home. But at the same time he tells me so much stuff that I can't say on here and it's a good thing that we are over there...
2006-08-12 10:53:15
·
answer #6
·
answered by Katy 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
You're right that it's about oil, but to leave it at that is really too simplistic.
If you're truly curious, I highly recommend that if you search for articles written by Claudia Rosset (she writes for Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal Online). Go to this link http://www.opinionjournal.com/ and scroll down, then use the SEARCH tool to find OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM. .
After the first Gulf war, the world agreed that sanctions against Iraq were to be implemented. Countries would not be permitted to trade with Iraq, but there was concern that the people of Iraq would fail to receive some of the basic needs of any civilization. So Saddam accepted a UN deal to sell Iraq's oil in exchange for humanitarian supplies (food, medicines, etc) for his people. Instead he had negotiated hidden contracts for things like broadcasting equipment, military supplies and various other deals that all provided Saddam with illegal kickbacks. I believe I saw an article stating that during his reign, he built something like 23 palaces in and around Baghdad. And among the countries he was negotiating these deals with? France, Russia and Germany, the three countries which did not support military action against Iraq. They had too much to lose by going to war against Saddam Hussein.
In addition, Saddam agreed to provide training camps for al-Qaida on Iraqi land in a deal he made with bin Laden (even though he didin't trust OBL)
Iraqi citizens were subject to government-sanctioned rape rooms and torture chambers - these methods were established policy for dealing with anyone who might have posed a threat to Saddam. It was a government in critical need of regime change. Most of the members of the UN agreed that something should be done. It was the US and the UK, plus the resulting coalition of countries who finally said "Yes, we've had enough"
The overall course is to dismantle training camps for terrorism, return democracy to Iraq, and help them to police themselves. But until the Iraqi Security Forces and the new government are able to stand on their own, they need help from the rest of the world.
As long as insurgents maintain their numbers, we cannot leave. And as their methods change, we must amend our vision as well. It won't be easy, but it must be done.
2006-08-12 11:47:25
·
answer #7
·
answered by princessmeltdown 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is possible. There is one way to know if it would work. The American troops currently in Iraq should stop doing anything(except protect themselves) for 3 weeks. If there is no marked increase in violence, then the troops can leave w o problems.
However, it is very unlikely to happen as America needs to continue to steal Iraqi oil and also partially to be in close proximity to Iran.
2006-08-12 10:53:55
·
answer #8
·
answered by mraei 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
well if you think its bad now, if we left it would get 100 times worse and would indeed break out into an all out civil war and would be just like when Clinton ran from Somalia, that country is still fighting with alot of innocents dieing and has no government.
2006-08-12 10:54:39
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
because bush want to stay there until he gain cont role over the Iraqi oil and put a government that is just a doll in his hand
to keep splaying him with the oil !!!
2006-08-12 10:53:36
·
answer #10
·
answered by NoFreedomNoPeace 1
·
1⤊
1⤋