2006-12-17 04:07:29 · 8 answers · asked by big j 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
IRAQISAX---Is it really the responsibility of Americans to protect Iraqis from their neighbors?
2006-12-17 05:04:49 · update #1
Ah Ha#6---If they are busy killing each other, doesn't that interfere w/ their killing of Americans?
2006-12-17 05:08:56 · update #2
ARKIEMOM---Is being "caught in the crossfire" worse than beng attacked directly?
2006-12-17 05:11:26 · update #3
Isn't the M.E. already pretty much "destabelized"?
2006-12-17 05:13:45 · update #4
You seem to believe the Vietnamese who prefered Communism, made the right choice.
2006-12-17 09:30:03 · update #5
I don't care if Islamic extremists kill each other in Iraq, but that's not the problem. The situation is one in which these extremists are killing innocent Iraqis. I have friends in Iraq. They would love to get out of that country.
2006-12-17 04:11:31 · answer #1 · answered by iraqisax 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A hope that by example other countries with factions intent on killing each other off will see they can live in peace, if factions within a single country can't do this, how can anyone sit on their thumbs and speak about a vision of "world peace" between all nations? Because they will never co-exist peacefully with other nations holding different religous beliefs/cultural values, if they can not be tolerant of their own fellow countrymen. If there is no hope, then waiting for another Dec 7 or Sept 11 and starting at one end and bombing the region flat to the other may be the better option after all, but there are optimists hoping for change among the people, that given chance they will be tired of war and ready to work together, and they have made much progress in Iraq, but you won't hear the news media discuss it until they can credit the democrats for it. If it weren't for foreign nations on the sunni or shia side trying to change the balance of power, and terrorists heading there simply for the chance to kill "infidels" or "occupiers" things would have worked out by now as Bush and Rumsfield had hoped. They were too optimistic, there is too much thirst for blood in the region, it won't be as easy as convincing just the Iraqis people.
2006-12-17 12:19:45 · answer #2 · answered by theshadowknows 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Number one should be that our soldiers are caught in the crossfire. Number two - if the entire Middle East is destabilized - we are totally screwed. Sadaam might have been a total dictator and cruel as hell - but he obviously knew what it took to keep things in check. The United States has always been too quick to act before studying other cultures, religions, and others' values. Not everyone thinks and acts in the same way we do. Does Vietnam ring a bell?
2006-12-17 12:16:09 · answer #3 · answered by arkiemom 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We shouldn't care if Islamic extremist kill each other, the thing is in Iraq that most of the people getting killed are not extremist.
2006-12-17 12:13:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
We [the US] have really discovered a new strategy. If we were to just pick off Assad (Syria), for example, and stand back, the country would likely implode w/o any risk to our soldiers. Just contain the violence within the boarder.
2006-12-17 12:20:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's not the point... it's who's behind the Jihadist that is the problem. It's who is funding this war and why that you should be worried about.
2006-12-17 12:10:50 · answer #6 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because they are killing us and will continue.
2006-12-17 12:14:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't care where they kill each other.
2006-12-17 12:47:42 · answer #8 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋