So the US can establish full control of Iraq's oil resources. Bush's rich oil company cronies need to get richer!
2006-10-18 10:30:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by this_one_dude 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
The war in Iraq was a mistake. Through 20/20 hindsight, we know that Iraq's WMD program was a joke.
However, we are there now. We cannot go back in time and prevent the mistake, so we have to work on a solution based on current events. To pull out and leave without stabilizing the country first, would be folly of the highest order.
First, if we leave without leaving Iraq with a strong gov't and strong security, it will only turn into another Afghanistan after the Soviets left, with another Taliban like group eventually seizing control, oppressing the people, and acting as a haven for terrorism. We would be inviting more terrorist attacks throughout the region and eventually against the west. By abandoning Iraq, we would only shift the problem 5 - 15 years down the road, after we are attacked again, perhaps numerous times.
Second, we owe it to the people of Iraq to do this since we invaded and upset the order of things. We owe it to them to leave them with a functioning gov't that they elect for themselves.
This should not be a Democrat or Republican issue. That the Democrats have invested so heavily in our defeat and abandoning Iraq is sheer idiocy, and an enormous reason why we cannot trust the Democrats to handle our national security.
2006-10-18 10:37:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by Uncle Pennybags 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The fact that we are at war in Iraq is nobodys fault but Iraqs.In 1991 Iraq invaded Kuwait and we had to run them out.Afterwards the united nations told Iraq that they had to get rid of there weopons of mass destruction and that they had to leave the kurds up in the north of Iraq alone.Under the terms of the cease fire they was supposed to get rid of all chemical and biological wepons under the supervision of the united nations but they kept kicking the inspectors out this went on for 12 years.after 9-11 we came to the conclusion that they could sell that stuff to other radical countries or groups.So we put pressure on them and they did not take us seriously.So we went to war.Now that we are there we cannot leave until the country is pacified if we did the radicals would take over and things would be worse.Alot of people over there are peace loving they just cant protect themselves yet.Iran dont want us to succeed there because a true democracy right next door would be a threat to there dictatorship and might bring them down.So they are fueling the insurgency providing explosives and stuff.The stakes are very high over there.Alot of those countries over there are afraid of a stable Iraq It would be the only muslim democracy in the world.And it scares them.We really need to stick it out it will pay off in the long run.
2006-10-18 10:51:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by tonyd232001 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because Iraq had stockpiles of WMD, and posed a clear and immediate threat to the United States?
No, wait; that's not it.
Because Iraq had ties to Al-Qaida?
Nope, I guess that' not right either.
Because by toppling Sadam and bringing democracy to Iraq, it would help stabilize the entire region?
Ooops. Damn!! That's wrong too.
Because, doggone it, Sadam was just a mean tyrant?
Hmmmm. I doubt that was it.
Because we were just itchin' for a fight?
So some American troops could practice their torture techniques?
So that Dumbyah, Rumsfeld, and Cheney could vicariously experience combat since none of them was in the military?
Oh yeah, I forgot; Bush was in the Texas National Guard.
Who the hell knows?
But by God, STAY THE COURSE!!!!!!
2006-10-18 10:39:24
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
against the Iraq warfare yet in view that all of us started it we could end it. of path there is the possibility that with Saddam in skill we'd have ultimately had to circulate to warfare faster or later. Who is acquainted with? I basically think of the money might have been greater constructive spent interior america of a on family individuals skill progression. strategies you, i'm no longer some fool who's blindly anti-warfare or anti-militia. till truthfully everyone interior the international ceases to be aggressive there'll continually be a choose for a militia. as long as international places compete for land and supplies there will be warfare. people who campaign to end all wars or get rid of the militia stay in a dreamworld.
2016-12-26 22:42:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yeah that would be my guess, oil. Possibly something about the Apocalypse for the evangelicals. Maybe Bush and crew are trying to turn the middle east into a substitute for the old Soviet Union as our enemies to justify our humongous defense budget. Business for Haliburton. All we have are guesses.
2006-10-18 10:45:21
·
answer #6
·
answered by socrates 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because of terror, a war without regular army...killing in shops,in hotels and in any place and anyone...killing innocents...muslins problems in everywhere
2006-10-18 10:36:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Oil?
2006-10-18 10:24:03
·
answer #8
·
answered by wyldfyr 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
TO WIN!
2006-10-18 10:23:39
·
answer #9
·
answered by daydoom 5
·
0⤊
2⤋