English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I just don't see how they could possibly be ready,given their chaotic circumstances.

2006-09-11 06:02:59 · 18 answers · asked by gregallenbush 1 in Politics & Government Politics

18 answers

All this is nothing new. Henry Stimson said the same thing about the Philippiines. They call it the white man's burden.
That means simply that other races are inferior to the white race, and that whites, endowed with superior attributes and intellect are doing their duty to God and Country to manage those savages. It was Stimson who interred the japanese during world war II, and dropped the bomb on Japan.
They were all part of the group that people used to call, "The Establishment".

2006-09-11 06:11:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Well, how long do we let the US army act as a police force?

5 years? 10 years? How long has any country in the Middle East not been either run by a dictator or under "chaotic circumstances".

2006-09-11 13:05:35 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2 0

Well, we have to start somewhere. We have no business being there in the first place. Here's a scary thought though. A little more than 50 years after the Korean war, we still have a few Army bases(don't know about the other branches), albeit in US friendly South Korea. Having served in Iraq, I can tell you that there's a lot of mixed emotions of the Iraqis whether or not they support us being there. I just know the sooner we bring our troops home, the better.

2006-09-11 13:13:15 · answer #3 · answered by Jay 2 · 0 0

This eventually must happen anyway.It must be implemented slowly.The Iraqi government must take responsibility for their own country.Now that their tyrannical psychopath leader is not in power any longer they may be able to become a free nation enjoying many of the benefits that other democracies enjoy today.The fact of the matter is it's simply too expensive in both loss of life and money for us to stay there forever.We cannot possibly run their country for them.Many of them resent us to begin with.They must overcome the turmoil in their nation and recover.And thanks Eli,but did you answer the question?I don't see an answer there anywhere.I merely see a clarification of terminology(which the questioner didn't ask for).Probably would have been good to include some pertinent info in that rant.

2006-09-11 13:10:19 · answer #4 · answered by joecseko 6 · 0 0

Is Iraq doing the right thing letting America police itself?

2006-09-11 13:05:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Read the book, if you can find it!, titled; "Inside The Kingdom of Saud". This book was actually on a list, along with ALL objects pertaining to any western religion, and was banned by the gov't of Saudi Arabia during the Kuwait-Iraq gulf war! My copy was taken away from me shortly after I arrived at the Dammam port.

2006-09-11 13:39:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No.

It doesn't matter. It was a waste anyway.

I find the argument of America liberating the Iraqi people for freedom ridiculous.

If that was the case..it should have been done in 91.

2006-09-11 13:09:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

America is not doing a Damn thing.

It is likely that you mean the United States, but you should remember that the US IS NOT America.

You see, America is not a nation America is a continent with 36 nations in it. The US never named itself the name of the United States is a designation it comes from the end of the Declaration of Independence, "WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS, Assembled...". The preamble to the U.S. Constitution reiterated the phrase: "We the People of the United States..." (The authors of these two documents probably used the phrase "united states" in place of a list of colonies/states because they remained uncertain at the time of drafting which colonies/states would sign off on the sentiments therein.) The geographic term "America" specifies the states' home on the American continent.

It is therefor incorrect to refer to US citizens as Americans with the intent of denoting citizenship, or the United States as America with the intent of denoting a nation. Americans have a term for US citizens, we are called United Statesians by the rest of Americans, to say American with the intent of denoting citizenship or America when we mean the United States reflects poorly on our attitude towards the 70% of Americans that are not United Statesians.

2006-09-11 13:04:39 · answer #8 · answered by Eli 4 · 0 3

Iraq has to learn how to take care of itself.

Sometimes the best way to teach someone how to swim, is to just pick them up and toss 'em in the water. Most people prefer swimming over sinking. You just have to force them to make the choice, sometimes.

2006-09-11 13:24:06 · answer #9 · answered by Mr. Bojangles 5 · 0 0

And i can't possibly see why should country be driven by an outside political gouverment.Iraq is not a threat to the world, maybe just a TREAT for some ;)

2006-09-11 13:06:09 · answer #10 · answered by xenomorph** 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers