English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

15 answers

This is a very good question, and should have been asked by President Bush before he went charging into a country he had no business going into in the first place.

Originally I would have answered this question under the assumption that it would be someone the United States decided would be able to play both sides of the political fence. Someone who would appear to be acting in the best interests of Iraqis, while remembering and acting in the best interests of the country that put them in power; United States.

Lately, however, I think the answer is very diferent. First of all because I think the United States has lost any control of the situation it might have had at one points and I think it has come to the point now where Iraq has clearly demonstrated that it does not want the kind of democracy that the United States would like to impose on it. The power will ultimately end up in the hands of the clerics that are still fighting over power. I no longer believe a democracy is possible in Iraq. That is the fault of the United States. The very thing that the United States saught to bring to the Iraqi people is being taken away from them by the very presence of the United States. Democracy is now being associated with the bloodshed and horrible living conditions that have been brought about by the United States invasion of Iraq, and although the United States is far from what is an ideal Democracy, it remains the symbol of democracy by it's own pompous proclimations. People don't want any part of that. Although there are many advantages of Democracy, the Iraqi people are not seeing it. They see only the downside of what the West has to offer.

2006-11-28 02:52:34 · answer #1 · answered by Michael 2 · 1 1

Iraq Has Been Totaly Destroyed and It needs lengthy many years to go back, i'm hoping Mr. G. Bush and His Follower T. Blair Are chuffed with There Victory Now. yet someone solutions Me Which usa often is the subsequent..?

2016-11-29 21:27:21 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

If we pull out before the country is stabilized, the Shiites backed by Iran will eventually run over the Sunni's then take on the Kurds who sit on the oil fields. Iranian revenge for what Saddam cost them. There is your war for oil!

2006-11-28 02:52:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The power vaccum will be filled with a US supported -puppet- Iraqi government (essentially the US but without having to be there quelling violence)

2006-11-28 02:43:23 · answer #4 · answered by j4ksh1t 1 · 0 1

Probably some dictator worse than Saddam.

2006-11-28 02:42:28 · answer #5 · answered by odandme 6 · 1 1

M. Sadar, thinks it will be himself but Al Queida will take over.

2006-11-28 02:43:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Recent developments make it hard to tell.

for background info :
http://www.worldaffairsmonthly.com/articlebyid.php?id=69

http://thefinalphase.com/index.html

http://www.spacewar.com/

2006-11-28 03:10:35 · answer #7 · answered by Farnham the Freeholder 3 · 0 0

Hopefully, a good strong and fair government.

Thank you very much, while you're up!!

2006-11-28 02:47:31 · answer #8 · answered by producer_vortex 6 · 1 0

religious fanatics ( this is the future of the middle east like it or not - lets just hope that they are pro-USA religious fanatics )

2006-11-28 02:42:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Who are you Puss in Boots? anyway it will not be bill clinton he's gonna be Head of the UN

2006-11-28 02:54:42 · answer #10 · answered by SweetDeath! 3 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers