Before we leave Iraq, the electricity, the water, the roads, the hospitals and the schools must be returned to the way they were before they were destroyed by this war. If this had been done immediately after "Mission Accomplished", there might not have been an insurgency. If it's done now, Iraq may not remain a training ground for terrorism. What do you think?
Please don't disappoint me by telling me this is a dumb question and I'm a *!!&**%##** idiot for asking it. I know that, already.
2006-11-05 05:12:13 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
"Three years after the fall of Saddam, many Iraqis still lack basic amenities like potable water, regularly endure power outages, and have yet to fully benefit from their country's immense oil wealth....................Although security remains Iraqis' foremost concern, one out of every three Iraqis say restoring infrastructure—not job creation, amending the constitution, or expelling U.S. troops—should be the government's top priority, according to a March 2006 International Republican Institute poll."
Source: Council on Foreign Relations
Date: 22 Jun 2006
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/KKEE-6R2M4W?OpenDocument
2006-11-05 05:30:19 · update #1
The way to rebuild is to fund Iraqi companies. That way the money stays there, instead of lining rich American's wallets.
It isn't a simple plan anymore, and perhaps never was, but Halliburton was never the answer!
If the money stays there, then it will continue to circulate, providing the necessary economic stimulus to bring the country out of poverty.
In order to eliminate terrorism, you must eliminate the things that cause terrorism. ((Poverty, ignorance and fanatacism)) can't eliminate the latter, but we can reduce the poverty and ignorance.
Don't know if we can stay anymore. It isn't that Democrats want to lose, it is that we know the war is lost already, now, how do we best clean up this mess, for our soldiers and the Iraqi people.
2006-11-05 05:20:53 · answer #1 · answered by Russ C 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no connection between infrastructure and terrorists, other than terrorists destroying infrastructure for some unknown reasons.
According to the US State Department, schools have been built, hospitals opened army forts set up, police stations set up and so on.
The problem is Al Quaeda trying to cause anarchy so they can take over. A secondary problem are Sunnis and Shiites settling old scores with each other.
The people doing battle are nuts, and that has nothing to do with the availability of electricity.
2006-11-05 05:18:38 · answer #2 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i comprehend how this website works, thanks. the position they agree isn't good, for the most area. endless defense force funding. the U. S. spends quite a lot as a lot as something of the international mixed on defense force funding. yet both activities continually vote in want of that. not elevating taxes on the midsection class is yet another. Neither party is sensible even as it contains taxation and the deficit. The deficit itself. For all republican's proceedings at present they were even worse even as it got here to the deficit. they did not even attempt to pay for issues or cause them to funds impartial. Gun rights. Democrats are scared to make that an difficulty, so as that they have got quite nicely gone alongside with the republican position. different more effective mundane issues... the civil rights act, medicare, medicaid, social protection, neither party is attempting to undo those products. even although they were important liberal reforms of the previous 50 years. My aspect is, the position they agree has a tendency to be a nasty component, not a good component.
2016-11-28 19:32:48 · answer #3 · answered by rothberg 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very humble of you. The mission accomplished had to do with specificall tumbling the Sadam regime. Most of what you say should be done, has been accomplished, and more. The so-called insurgency (where at least half of the participants are from outside of Iraq) has nothing to do with these things. It has to do with establishing a democracy in Iraq and the threat that that poses to the Islamic Terrorism.
2006-11-05 05:18:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
There is allot of substance in what you are saying. Initially that was the plan, but somehow (most likely by Rumsfeld) it went from re-building the country to being caught in a civil war, and a live fire qualification course for terrorist!
2006-11-05 05:15:12 · answer #5 · answered by Fitforlife 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Oh absolutly. If we don't help rebuld they will see us as coming to destroy and leaving them in the rubble. Its a must that we help them before we leave, or all Iraqi people, regardless of the sect, will hate us and this will serve to fuel terrorism in the future
2006-11-05 05:14:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Now you see that is not a stupid question, is just a common sense that your mind is using now.
A lot of people think the way you are thinking now.
2006-11-05 05:16:33 · answer #7 · answered by arqui 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Our people over there are already working on that and in many cases the infrastructure is already better than it was.
2006-11-05 05:14:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
actually in most cases they all ready have been ( short of where the terrorist have destroyed what has been built.
But there are more roads, more hosptials ( including teachings ones) there are more schools than before.
That is what we have been doing these three years.
2006-11-05 05:15:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
We don't need to be there while they fix things up. I'm sure they'd be just as happy if we would get out and just write them a check.
2006-11-05 05:20:31 · answer #10 · answered by Good Times, Happy Times... 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋