The invasion of Iraq and Lebanon has definetly fueled hate for the western powers from the terrorists and many people are joining to support them. But what would happen if the U.S. were to leave now? Or if Israel were to withdraw or make peace? It would be seen as a victory by terrorist supporters and their numbers would grow even more rapidly. The U.S. should have left after Saddam was gone and started caring for our own people but we are in this now and a withdrawal by us would cause us to lose any of the world support we have now, which is the only thing I think that could possibly defeat terror. Iraq may not have been the right country to start in, but could we make it the place where the terror is finished? What do you all think, can we withdraw without making things worse on the world?
2006-08-15 15:13:01 · 10 answers · asked by ? 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Archer Christifori is not wrong. It would have left the country in chaos and I hope Democracy can work in Iraq. The problem is the terrorist organizations have a lot of people in Iraq and it will take a LONG time for the U.S. and its small amount of allies that still support it to root them all out. I predict Iraq will harbor terrorists no matter what. If more soldiers were there and the terrorists were trapped in Iraq and could not leave they would be defeated and if we defeated all the terrorists in Iraq, it could cripple them. Who really knows?
2006-08-15 15:36:33 · update #1
Wolfmanx makes some great points. I do not think Democracy will work for a people that do not understand it. I think that is why it is taking so long for them to get the country under control. I'm pretty sure several dates have been met and exceeded as far as when we were supposed to withdraw.
2006-08-15 15:40:06 · update #2
Our being there aggrivates the situation.
Wouldn't it be more realistic to set a date for withdrawl, forcing the new Iraqi government to survive on its own merits, rather than try to force our values on their culture? If the "terrorists" take over Iraq, how different would that be from where we were with Saddam?
Terrorism happened before 9-11, (Ask the rest of the world) and will happen as long as there are radicals of any kind on the planet. Terror will never be "finished" in that sense. As for our support from the rest of the world, why do you think we're the main ones there? The rest of the world doesn't support our involvement in these areas. Why do WE have the right to attack another country because we disagree with their leadership?
(Don't get me started about WMD's, either.)
The biggest problem is, we need to admit we were wrong for going into Iraq as we did, and focus our attention on defending ourselves from attack, as well as finding those responsible for the terrorism on our shores. We have enough internal problems without going abroad and trying to "fix" anyone else's.
Israel's response to attacks has been to attack in return, and look where that has led. I'm not saying not to defend yourself, but be realistic, and find those responsible for the attacks. Don't attack areas indiscriminately.
The middle east has been in crisis for many years. My hope is that someone will remind the people of that area that their land is holy to many religions, and should perhaps just be treated as such. A Holy Land. Not Mine or Yours, or a place where fighting occurs over who owns what.
Too bad that will probably never happen...
2006-08-15 15:33:35 · answer #1 · answered by wolfmantex 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think Iraq was a great place to start, lots of nasty folks there looking to hurt Americans. I think that 911 was a prelude of things to come, the next 10 years are going to scare the S--t out of you, THAT'S WHEN everyone will pull together as a team, and stop all of this political mud slinging, and in fighting. Then everyone will say "Why didn't we do something sooner", didn't we learn from 911 ! the problem that the terrorist's are running into was the one mistake they made. They picked the wrong city to try and destroy, whats more resilient than a New Yorker ?
2006-08-15 22:26:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
NO we cannot, and it's not that Iraq is a bad place to start. Any place to start is where we need to start, if we want a safe and free country that leads the world in so many ways. I'm thankful every day that my son is in his second tour of duty over in Iraq as we speak, and is carrying the war to the enemy rather than sitting over here on his asssss or wringing his hands worrying to no avail. We can and will bring this war to a successful conclusion. Not that Iraq or Iran or Syria, etc, will ever want to become the 51st, 52nd or 53rd States to our Union, but that they can see the futility of their world wide terrorism. God Bless you.
2006-08-15 22:22:59 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If we leave before we finish the job we will just have to go back there later maybe under a stronger regime. Just like 90's should have cleaned up then and we would not be there now. Unfortunately God's plan has us there now so deal with it as he is in charge
2006-08-15 22:27:30 · answer #4 · answered by iamwelndowd1 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe you are correct. However, the USA is a Democracy and if a Majority want out - we are up the creek without a paddle. Look what they did to Senator Lieberman at the Connecticut Primary - he lost the nomination to a man that wants out.
2006-08-15 22:28:38 · answer #5 · answered by fatsausage 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
your analysis of recent history is suspect, as are your assertions of a "better" way.
Leaving after saddam was removed would have left a country in chaos and would have allowed a new dictator to take power which would have been in support of hezbollah, hamas and al qaeda.
But you know this already.
Most people in iraq WANT us to stay but we are not going to stay.
As a democracy its unlikely iraq will be a terrorist friendly country but in you version its guaranteed they would have remained so.
Let the serious political discussions for adults.
2006-08-15 22:24:07 · answer #6 · answered by Archer Christifori 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
We can't withdraw without making things worse, but frankly, we can't make things much better either. Meanwhile, all those resources being used to protect Iraqis from each other are NOT available to protect OUR homeland.
And forget the "We'll fight them over there to keep from having to fight them over here" bull. The truth is, while we're tied up fighting people over there who DIDN'T attack us on 9-11, it gives our real enemy the chance to sneak in and fight us over here.
2006-08-15 22:24:53 · answer #7 · answered by hquin_tset 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In the "long run" how can we afford to spend TWO BILLION DOLLARS PER WEEK in Iraq? In July 3438 Iraqi civilians died. How long can that continue? This is a loosing strategy in all regards.
2006-08-16 00:25:00 · answer #8 · answered by murphy 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No matter when the US leaves there will be a civil war in Iraq.As far as I am concerned the blood is on our hands.
Shame on the US.
2006-08-15 22:42:14 · answer #9 · answered by David S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
President Bush told ALL AMerican people that this war would be a long war. People jsut choose to forget that when they bash him. Guess hes not so stupid after all. He predicted this outcome and we've pretty much followed the exact prediction. We cannot pull out now, nor do we need to.
2006-08-15 22:20:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋