because we are there trying to fight the terrorists so idiots like you can spout off your anti-America rantings in the safety of your smug little world.
2006-12-15 07:17:43
·
answer #1
·
answered by slodana2003 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
We are far from finished, I take it the people blowing up car bombs daily and killing Iraqi civilians are not terrorists?
There are many reasons why we are still in Iraq, and many politicians that were for an immediate pull-out have changed views, leaving just activist groups. I am for a pull-out, but gradual.
First of all, Iraq is not stable in any way, and is in a Civil war by definition. An immediate pull out will most likely lead to mass slaughters.
Secondly, you have terrorist organizations just waiting in Syria and Iran to pounce and take control.
Third, you have Syria and Iran looking to invade.
We went it, did our job and well, pretty much screwed up the whole country, we did quite a job, probably would have been better just to find an excuse and nuke it in the first place so we woudn't have to deal with it. (That was a JOKE).
Now, we are pretty much entitled to make sure Iraq survives and that the people are protected and that the sunni and shites don't go kill each other, it's called cleaning up our screw up.
Really, what would happen if we just took off and said have a nice day...
2006-12-15 15:15:50
·
answer #2
·
answered by Craig 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
We're there trying to bring democracy to a country that doesn't want it. With Saddam gone, all these other groups want to take control. I spent a year over there as a mercenary and our troops are getting f*cked up over there just trying to keep all these groups from killing each other. I went over there for the money, I still don't really know why our troops are still there. Those people neither wants us there and believe we're infidels anyway. How come Americans always have to police the world?
2006-12-15 15:20:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by Whadafuc? 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why can't you get it into your heads that the US and UK are not going to leave as long as the oil is still there. They are building military bases right now, and whatever the Iraqi people want, they are going to stay.
Control of the oil is what this war was and is about, whatever the politicians say. That this war is producing terrorism instead of combatting it seems to be immaterial to them.
If it is going on for much longer US Americans will be targets wherever they go in the world, people used to hate the US gouvernments and like the single American, but now the hatred is becoming universal, not only in Iraq and Iran, but everywhere in the region, and even in Europe.
2006-12-15 15:09:13
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
we haven't cleaned out the country it is still a very safe place for ists, have you forgoten about all those people who died, do you want to risk that again! and if you have a problem with the wonderful, amazing President Bush, you should drop to your knees and thank the good Lord above that I aint President, cause I would have nuked them a hell of a long time ago!
2006-12-15 15:21:28
·
answer #5
·
answered by honkytonk honey 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
Because things in Iraq are not going well, and Bush hopes to cover his butt and save 'face'. He's still hoping that he can build, or save, his 'legacy'. That's what the whole thing was about in the first place: his 'legacy'. If we pulled out now, Bush knows that he would go down in history as the 'worst president ever'.
2006-12-15 15:18:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by TRAF 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
EVIDENCE OF CORRUPT MOTIVES FOR WAR ON IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
Was oil a key motive for the war against Iraq and Afghanistan? Is there a hidden agenda behind the "war on terrorism"? Read the evidence and decide for yourself.
http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/who_next.asp
2006-12-15 15:13:44
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
OIL.
The U.S. will remain in Iraq until the last drop of oil dries up. That's why Bush is still there, and is not leaving until all the oil is gone. It's all about the money: always was, always has been and always will be.
2006-12-15 15:08:54
·
answer #8
·
answered by ara_service 2
·
3⤊
1⤋
While discussing the Vietnam conflict President Lyndon Johnson told David Brinkley" "I'm not gonna be the first President to lose a war!"
I think history is repeating.
2006-12-15 15:06:27
·
answer #9
·
answered by Timothy B 3
·
2⤊
2⤋
This is because our president believes it is possible to neutralize EVERY insurgent and terrorist who would oppose the new government in Iraq, and do it WITHOUT using diplomacy. Idiotic if you ask me.
In the meantime, he has Halliburton scamming the Iraqis out of their oil reserves (many military bases are stationed near oil fields).
2006-12-15 15:07:40
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋