There have beeen rumblings all along. And rising sectarian violence. Increased Iraqi civilian deaths. US troops caught in the crossfire. Day in and day out. No end in sight. But other of our troops waiting in the wings. And Washington calling for more. Four thousand Iraqi police killed since the US started "training" them. A psuedo-backup US-force for a rapidly decreasing Iraqi police presence.
.........And so I am beginning to believe that it will go just so far,meaning this shrewd and cunning game plan, and then the US will position itself, for a great takeover of the Iraqi government. That was the plan all along...We never intended to leave Iraq. And by allowing the violence to render the country of Iraq nearly helpless, legitimizes that the Iraqi police cannot take over effectively.
Nor its government.
Not now.
Not ten months or twelve months from now.
But will it backfire?
We shall see what transpires.
2006-10-24 14:28:26 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I believe the problem is inbred in many of the answerers. And no, I don't watch television over ten monutes a day; I have no interest in talking heads; iff the question is too far above your level of knowledge, then don't bother to answer."Rambling"you say? humm. perhaps you can't retain more than a six word sentence, Yes?
It was a legitimate question. I haven't read an intelligent answer yet Just excuses.
2006-10-24 15:06:43 · update #1
No. To do that we have to garrison soldiers in every village in Iraq, and we don't have the troops to do that.
The American people want a small modern army, TOO SMALL FOR AN EXTENSIVE OCCUPATION. The American people are essentially anti-imperialistic.
The present administration might like to try your strategy, but there aren't enough troops and, politically, they are about to get swamped in a tidal wave of political rage in the course of the off-year elections. Independent voters are stampeding AWAY from the administration and its bungling in Iraq, so the administration has run out of time to accelerate military involvement.
They'd LIKE to do what you're suggesting, but they've bludered badly and run out of time now.
2006-10-24 14:34:01 · answer #1 · answered by urbancoyote 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What news do you read? Wait, do you read at all or is television your only link to the world?
No one in authority has ever given any of those statements.
The facts include that we have never intended to take over Iraq - what would we do with it. No, it is not the oil, as we get our oil mostly from Canada. The Iraqi soldiers & police have been killed because they are inexperienced. This would be like sending our guys to Iraq for bootcamp & have them learn as they go.
Come back, when you sit in the Chiefs of Staff & maybe I will believe you.
2006-10-24 14:39:37 · answer #2 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
nope...the united states cannot, willnot, and dosent even want to " take over "Iraq...we did want a democracy and a friend in that part of the world, but it seems not likely either..the shiites, mostly from Iran, are mostly muslim, and while they are the majority of the population in Iran, were subject to harsh treatment under saddam h...the sunnis while about 1/2 as many as the shiites, were in saddams favor..and held most of the good paying government jobs, and the army jobs...what we did oddly enough, when we " took over " Iraq, was removed Irans biggest enemy...saddam knew how these radical islamist think, thats why he kept them at bay...so..what happens now?...we leave Iraq, the radical islamists, Iran< takes over the country, most of the sunnis die, and maybe we will be back in 5 years to help the kurds when Iran squeezes them...you can take that to the bank
2006-10-24 14:55:06 · answer #3 · answered by wherbie_2001 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Was all that rambling an actual question? Rambling happens when you are too uninformed to make rational judgments. Try watching balanced news casts and avoid the talking heads. If you're reading the New York papers, you're too far gone to save.
2006-10-24 14:40:41 · answer #4 · answered by Apex 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
US might be justified to take over Iraq due to the civil war resulting to many deaths.
2006-10-24 14:30:50 · answer #5 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Please--are you one in each and every of those "conflict for Oil" human beings? Get authentic! the yankee public does no longer stand for occupying Iraq --we want an best buddy - no longer an annex. flow examine some extra conspiracy theories............
2016-12-05 04:56:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, we are not. The US has no interest in "taking over" Iraq, or we would have done so.
If the US WANTED Iraq, then it would be ours, as we have earned the right to it, by right of conquest.
We don't want it, we just want it to be stable.
2006-10-24 14:31:35 · answer #7 · answered by Ricky T 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Its just like the doubters who said the US would not find weapons of mass destruction.
2006-10-24 14:30:36 · answer #8 · answered by GratefulDad 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2006-10-24 15:04:22 · answer #9 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋