2006-11-28 08:18:33 · 16 answers · asked by ? 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Not necessarily the ill advised invasion, but the handling of the whole damn thing is the reason for the civil war in Iraq. We should have never gone there in the first place as the invasion was based on a lie. However if we had made better decisions after we got there maybe we could have thwarted the civil war. The Generals have said since the beginning that we should have had more people and we should have disarmed everyone and secured the borders from outside influences, hind sight is better then foresight, but I think Rumsfeld was told there was a problem from the beginning.
2006-11-28 08:29:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
1. There is no war, just a illegal occupation of a former country, now a dilapidated test ground for the military. 2. The USA military will stay until 2008, by this time the Pentagon will have found another way to justify its existence 3. see above 4. There is no solution in the sense, the American public expects. Iraq is a different world and no Germany or Japan. The country has the Kurds, which have the oil and some sense. Then there are Sunnis and Shiites, which can't live with each other, then in a brutal dictatorship. Give each his own country and run. 5. There was not a single Terrorist, before the USA came.
2016-05-22 23:04:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Like it or not, the militant republican government in Iraq kept a great deal of hatred, intolerance, and violence at bay for a long time. This, despite the corruption, genocide and fear that went along with it. But all this racial and religious intolerance kept building up between Iraqis while it was subdued behind the gate of violence and oppression.
I believe the 'civil war' (and most war) is a consequence of religious intolerance. The US invasion was the hand that opened the floodgates. Suddenly, there was an easy outlet for all that built-up hatred. And the only channel they knew was violence.
The answer to this question could be 'yes' or 'no.' And the reasons for both arguments would be correct. The US was the spark that ignited this blaze. But, the firewood was already nice and dry!
The US can stay or leave. It won't make too much of a difference either way. All the soldiers in the world couldn't flush the hatred out of Iraq.
2006-11-28 09:59:38 · answer #3 · answered by Stupid Factor 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No! How could you think that!
As the President says, there is NOT a civil war in Iraq.
Even if there is civil war, it's caused by the Forces of Evil, not the USA.
Maybe you need to take some Good American lessons!
2006-11-28 08:35:36 · answer #4 · answered by Cracker 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It will be intellectually dishonest for anyone to offer a contrary view to your asertion. Not even the chickenhawks in the administration question that. Notice how they are now travelling the world, cap in hand, when only a year ago it was all arrogance and 'stay the course'.
Frankly, they have brought shame on America.
2006-11-28 08:33:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Consequence of bush's incompetence
2006-11-28 08:30:34 · answer #6 · answered by JS 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The factional fighting is the inevitable result of the end of a brutal tyrant. A lot of pent up anger esp by Shia & Kurds is being unleashed. We should have anticipated that.
2006-11-28 08:23:46 · answer #7 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This time. Over the past thousands of years it has usually been religious differences.
2006-11-28 08:22:34 · answer #8 · answered by T S 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, though bush doesn't want to admit it cuz that would get his approval ratings even lower.
2006-11-28 08:29:21 · answer #9 · answered by Me 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is more the result of occupation by Syria and Iran, aided by the fact that the US is not as ruthless as was Saddam in dealing with outside instigators.
2006-11-28 08:24:27 · answer #10 · answered by ML 5 · 0⤊ 5⤋