I'm not a dem, but will answer anyhow. Bush is commander in chief, so he will decide the military action...and we will see how his new secretary will advise. They know better than any politicians how to win this war. I wonder, though, that if they decide to change the course of action and fail, will the american people blame the dems? I don't think that anything is going to change drastically before the next two years. To do so would be political suicide...unless they decide that they will give clear goals and time frames to accomplish them. i believe that if you give people deadlines, they try harder to meet goals. That's how it works in the business world...
2006-11-13 02:12:30
·
answer #1
·
answered by hichefheidi 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Your question should be offensive to all Americans for it is a clear demonstration of ignorance; the ignorance of isolationism that pervades all things American. By perporting such a ridiculous proposition as Iran and Iraq getting together as "best buds" is a clear demonstration of your own ignorance of the history and the politics of the region.
The Iranians see themselves as Persians first and foremost and although Islam is a big part of who they are, it takes a back seat to being a Persian. Iranians have their own language separate and apart from the arabic spoken in Iraq and their own alphabet. And the nuances of differentiation spread across every aspect of their society. They see themselves as Persians not Arabs.
Also, you seem to have conveniently erased the long violent war fought between Iraq and Iran just recently. This was a very bitter struggle and the wounds are still very fresh and very open. To suggest that Iraq would turn to Iran if the coalition forces left is a demonstration of arrogance and stupidty.
2006-11-13 02:44:37
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The majority Shiite are going to democratically align with Iran whether we stay or go. They have already elected a majority Shiite government.
Bush started this garbage in Iraq and it will be Bush's legacy that Iraq was handed to Iran.
At least Saddam kept a lid on Islamic extremists, sectarian violence and kept Iraq out of Iran's hands.
Way to go King George!
2006-11-13 01:51:43
·
answer #3
·
answered by sprcpt 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Ok I agree with you on what you said but i want to play DEVILS Advocate
What if that is the plan for Iraq to align with Iran? Maybe Iraq will have a little pull with them so that we might have inside intelligence or they will align and make the biggest military in the middle east with nuclear capabilites.
2006-11-13 01:32:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by Chad S 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
of course Iran needs the U. S. to provide up Iraq. that's insurgents from different international locations that are the issue in Iraq not the U. S. and those insurgents are partly offered by ability of Iran. I advise that any one who has any doubts ought to talk to an Iraqi citizen and you gets the authentic answer and that's that they don't desire a withdrawal people troops, they are combating an entire scale massacre which might truthfully stick to any withdrawal. the middle east is terrified that Iran will attempt to take administration. We will possibly not like it however the presence people troops in Iraq is a lot maximum proper to Iranian and a attainable spark to gasoline international conflict 111. people ought to rouse and face the information lest we live to remorseful approximately our strikes now.
2016-10-22 00:20:33
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
That would play right into Iran's hands. Iran has been trying for decades to get control of Iraq. It wouldn't surprise me if Iran was the source of all the misinformation about WMD in Iraq.
2006-11-13 02:04:03
·
answer #6
·
answered by .... . .-.. .-.. --- 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think we can cut and run at this point. It would not be good for the US/Iraq in the long run. However, Iraq was a mistake and I feel very sorry for our troops stuck over in this mess. I'm worried that the problem you mention above will still be an issue we are talking about in ten years.
2006-11-13 01:39:37
·
answer #7
·
answered by Return Of Buckwheat 1
·
3⤊
0⤋
ok... first off... Rummy said like a year ago that Iraq had like 200,000 troops ready for battle... that's probably better prepared than most countries in the world... if that was true...
but, if you watch what the elected government of Iraq is doing... they elected a majority of the same religion as Iran... and religion runs thicker than borderlines over there...
the elected governement has already made some very friendly gestures to Iran... talks of sharing info... all kinds of good stuff...
so, my question to you is... what happens if they elected a government that loves Iran and will be Iran's best friend? whenever we leave, it's not going to be pretty...
and how does anyone plan to fix that situation, since it seems to be what the majority wants?
I don't want to "cut and run"... but I don't want to have to stay forever either...
2006-11-13 01:27:39
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
Are you worried about Iraq or it's wealth?
Can their situation get any worse than this?
OK you may not choose this one as the best answer. What's the point in sending out mercenary troops and create more hatred towards Americans?
But now you have some more questions to ask!!!
2006-11-13 01:53:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by Pishisauraus 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hey, we can't afford to stay over there and babysit the Iraqi people just because they want to kill each other and our brave American troops. It's time for the American to say enough and get the hell out of Iraq as soon as possible and use the money saved to strengthen our armed forces here in America.......
2006-11-13 02:19:56
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋