2006-12-06 04:15:18 · 28 answers · asked by bob h 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because bush is dumb
2006-12-06 04:15:49 · answer #1 · answered by Dr. Newton 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
It's not just that...Europe has a grand way of gripping when the US does something, and doing the same when it does nothing. The thing is the time to think about Iraq was before there was any movement into it. Leaving now so suddenly will leave it in a state of civil war and it probably won't be stable for a while. The US can't pull out right now after all it has done in Iraq. It isn't so much that 'Bush is dumb' (Fallacy ad hominem) as there was a lack of contingency planning for rebuilding the country. It is an issue of not wanting to leave Iraq in the same or worse hands than it was before. To be honest, even Clinton bombed Iraq, but he didn't feel like jumping onto the political fallout of nation building, which doesn't really help anyone the way it was done. Given, the main reason Bush was so gung-ho about the whole thing was probably because he wanted to outdo his father, but behind the issue is the fact that the questions should have always been, should we go in? Now that that is happened there is little much to do but wait it out, and planing a slow withdrawal and a transfer of power, something that is rarely ever smooth.
2006-12-06 04:24:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
We are still there because we never committed enough troops to secure the borders and establish law and order. It had been suggested that troop levels in postwar Iraq should have been several hundred thousand to establish law and order. Actual troop levels have only been about 130,000.
2006-12-06 04:36:27 · answer #3 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We should have never invaded in the first place..but now that we're there we can't leave. Iraq has a lot of oil..and if we leave then the terrorists will use that resource to spread terrorism and they will use the money for destruction.
2006-12-06 04:18:03 · answer #4 · answered by goldengirl 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The job is not finished. Nothing worth doing is worth doing in half measures. If we should have gone there in the first place is not the issue now. The issue is the question "What is the result likely to be if we leave before the Iraqi government is stable?". Been discussed thousands of times here already.
2006-12-06 04:18:52 · answer #5 · answered by Rich B 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The better question is.... Why is Iraq not the 51st state?
We have given them more money than any state in the union.
Shouldn't we own it by now?
2006-12-06 04:18:22 · answer #6 · answered by True101 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To make sure Iraq had democracy and is a better country, esp. for women, no longer under Saddam's rule. There is still terror there that we need to deal with, like insurgents and more terror cells.
2006-12-06 04:17:56 · answer #7 · answered by Kristen H 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I'M not in Iraq. Are you?
2006-12-06 04:38:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because, we owe it to the Iraqi people to TRY and clean up the mess Bush left.
2006-12-06 04:21:00 · answer #9 · answered by Mr. Bojangles 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just by asking of the question shows you do not have much understanding of the world around you.
2006-12-06 05:48:21 · answer #10 · answered by Ynot! 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I read there pulling out in 2008
2006-12-06 04:16:31 · answer #11 · answered by Kenneth J 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋