true or false,,,,,,,,,,just answer the question
2006-10-11 08:14:49 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
False - It's still Israel.
2006-10-11 08:16:11 · answer #1 · answered by MEL T 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
False - This region was unstable to begin with. It was the first Persian Gulf War that made things so hard to deal with in Iraq. When a dictator could have been overthrown we stopped, we pulled back, we had over 1/2 million troops the last time, we had the support of the country, we had support of the region.
Saddam should have been removed then, when we left the region became even more unstable. Since then it has been more and more a matter of time before we HAD to stabilize it.
Will it take time Yes. Are we doing bang up job? I don't know, but I can see first hand that there is stability here that was not here before.
2006-10-11 08:20:37 · answer #2 · answered by sabum69 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Don't all wars destabilize the region before it re-stabilizes better? WWII destabilized Hitler's Germany before it came back to where it is now. Was it, therefore, better to leave Hitler in power and have a stabilized Germany or was it better to remove Hitler from office, destabilize the country the immediate result, and make the country even better as the long-term result?
The answer to your question is "Yes" but that's not unusual or necessarily a bad thing to obtain the long-term result.
2006-10-11 08:18:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The wars below Bush have been criminal. voted for by the two Liberals and Conservatives. the Liberals do in basic terms no longer every person to are conscious of it and attempt to act like they did no longer p.c. those wars. besides the undeniable fact that, you won't be able to deny what's now a factor of history and on the record. The conflict that Obama did no longer get the vote for , became by Presidentail decree. that's in basic terms assume to be utilized in case of a disaster, and it rather is somewhat debateable if the disaster he websites became a valid one. by the way he has surpassed seventy seven Presidential decrees on the grounds that he has been in place of work. far extra then the different President!
2016-12-26 16:20:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
True - but everyone is beating a dead horse.... When the war first started everyone seemed for it, even though I couldn't understand why- and now that people are seeing that it wasn't started for the reasons said the majority is against it. People have more power than they think they do, but everyone just listens to other people's interpretations and opinions as fact instead of researching it and drawing their own conclusion - so there is no point and bad mouthing the war now.. it is done.. we did it and now we are going to pay for it. Why beat it to death
2006-10-11 08:23:23 · answer #5 · answered by katjha2005 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
American troops are caught in a regional civil war between Sunnis and Shia.
2006-10-11 08:16:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
False. The region was unstable already, after Bush is finished they will be the most stable place on earth. And if not, we'll just kill the bastards
2006-10-11 08:19:04 · answer #7 · answered by college_republicans_club 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
False it was already destabilized.
2006-10-11 08:25:22 · answer #8 · answered by Skull&Bones 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
True
2006-10-11 08:16:24 · answer #9 · answered by Phoenix, Wise Guru 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
True
2006-10-11 08:16:06 · answer #10 · answered by Preacher 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋