Right now pretty much of all the qualified decision maker in Iraq have left or been killed.
Coach
2006-12-07 03:26:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by Thanks for the Yahoo Jacket 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Should he?
Could he?
doesnt really matter....more than the fact that he is.
Tha majority of people in the U.S. have voted he shouldnt.
And after the utter fialure of finding the weapons of mass destruction that saddam was suppose to have, Bush's judgement should no longer be trusted.
But it is....partly because the republicans owned the governement for all of bush's years.
So hopefully this new democratic governemtn can start breaking down the will of bush to stay.
But my guess is that all will have to wait for his term to end before anythign actually does get done.
Which is a shame for our troops, but the good thing is tht we have a plan set forth that all agree is now focused on Iraq governemnt enforncing its own government. That should take about a year.
So, while we dont like Bush's never ending commitment to HIS cause, it will end shortly, and in time where the IRAQI's should be prepared to take care of its own.
All this is nonsense -- because Bush wont move for a year, and training IRAQ will take about a year.
So, everyone will have to wait another year either way, to see the possibility of change occur.
and arguing out the obvious makes no sense when even an impeachment threat would have no effect for a president whos on his way out.
So, this one year will be very interesting, and very telling as to what will become of IRAQ and our soldiers with the new elections a year away.
Should he, would he, dont matter a much as the fact that he WONT BE in 08
2006-12-07 11:46:35
·
answer #2
·
answered by writersbIock2006 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Has this ever been in question by anyone? Bush & the military have worked towards Democratic elections for Iraq ( they suceeded in this) & Iraq being strong enough to defend themselves.
This has always been the plan but plans take time & do not always work. If they worked always, he would be perfect & no one is perfect.
He should make decisions for the United States as that was what he was elected to do but the majority of Americans - not once but twice. Some may not like it but it does not change the election results.
2006-12-07 11:29:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by Wolfpacker 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
The Iraqi people should make their own decisions.
But from what I hear, they're either not capable or not willing to act like a modern country. They are more loyal to family and religion and region than to the state of Iraq. Also, it sounds as if corruption is so deep and ingrained in the country that they can't put together a modern government on their own. That's why the world - yes, it's more than just the US there - is trying to build a more modern country there. I hope it works, but I don't expect it will any time soon. Maybe the only way to do it is to foster modern education among the people, and try to be a good example.
If they weren't sitting on an ocean of oil, of course, nobody would give a rip.
2006-12-07 11:28:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by Ralfcoder 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
They cannot make decisions for Irak as a whole because they are too divided. Small provinces however can govern themselves. Iraq needs to break down in this way before it can naturally build itself back up again.
2006-12-07 12:32:44
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The people of Iraq should make their own decisions. Iraq will not accept westernized customs or beliefs. The people of Iraq would like Bush and his cronies to stay out of their business. They would also like the US troops to go home and stop occupying their country. And for those who think that "if we leave, the Iraqis will have CIVIL WAR!!!" "Oh dear" "Oh Dear"???
Please. That is exactly what US policy wants. It's like Blacks killing Blacks. Hum. "Why should we care??? They kill each other? it saves us the trouble"
Don't fool yourselves. The only reason the US is still there is because of the oil.
Bush needs to spend more time making decisions about urgent matters in the United States.
2006-12-07 11:22:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by rare2findd 6
·
1⤊
3⤋
USA considers itself an occupying force. From a legal perspective, that means we are responsible for security decisions in the nation of Iraq as per the Genevea Conventions and its designations of responsibilities and powers of and occupying force.
Ergo, Bush is right to make the security decisions. As more sectors are passed to Iraq for control (already half of available sectors are under Iraqi control) our autocratic responsibilities and powers are lessened.
Before hyperbole and rhetoric, I always encourage enlightenment through research.
2006-12-07 11:24:18
·
answer #7
·
answered by lundstroms2004 6
·
2⤊
2⤋
True.
And you should be asking yourself why you don't know that Iraq has had an elected government making their decisions for over a year now.
All we did was allow them the chance to chose their government.
Do you have a problem with this?
2006-12-07 12:21:12
·
answer #8
·
answered by MikeGolf 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
True, but Bush likes making puppets out of other countries so we can control them better and use their resources.
2006-12-07 11:23:34
·
answer #9
·
answered by Grand Master Flex 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
Yes they should be making their own decissions, I sure wish they would start doing it!!!!!!!! Right now in Iraq "self interests" trump "national interests"
2006-12-07 11:25:31
·
answer #10
·
answered by tom l 6
·
1⤊
1⤋