I hear a lot of ill-founded hysteria about worst case scenarios. But what is the best case scenario?
2007-01-12 02:04:38 · 20 answers · asked by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
"beginning their attacks on US soil AGAIN"????
When has an Iraqi ever attacked US soil??? NEVER!
Thanks for the disinformation!
2007-01-12 02:09:51 · update #1
Best case scenario - civil war and the installation of another ruthless dictator. The best-case scenario for Iraq is the worst case-scenario for the US globalist agenda.
These groups have been warring for centuries. The only thing that kept them in check was the brutality of Saddam.
2007-01-12 02:14:14 · answer #1 · answered by john_stolworthy 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lets see best case scenario!
Peace and democracy explodes all over Iraq
Iran seeing this decides they want to give up their nuclear program and decides to become a democracy too.
Iran has decided that since American means them no harm they will no longer sponsor Hamas Hezbollah and other terrorist group.
With the Americans leaving most of the Arab countries decides to lower the price of their oil to show their appreciation.
Pssst, if you believe any of this give me a call I would like to sell you some land real cheap.
2007-01-12 03:20:00 · answer #2 · answered by Ynot! 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The best case is no more American troops are wasted in this idiotic farce of Bush's. For the Iraqi people, they seem unable to rise above the hatreds they carry. I see no best case scenario for them...
2007-01-12 02:20:18 · answer #3 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the best case scenario that the people of Iraq will come together and have a democratic system, but unfortunately the troth is that if we pull back now it will be terrorists play ground and that will even reach the states at some point, and the people of Iraq will kill each other in civil war, its too late to pull out now.
2007-01-12 02:17:48 · answer #4 · answered by emad h 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think the best case would be for Iraq to split into three regions with a Kurdish north, Sunni middle and Shiite South. They would be forced to work together in order to share their resources and be effective as a government. The sectarian fighting would probably flair up, but eventually it would die down.
If a loose Shiite Theocratic coalition takes over the middle and the south, we can always rely on Persian-Arab hatred to overcome any meaningful cooperation with Iran.
2007-01-12 02:10:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
For Iraq, or for America?
The best case scenario is that they both get along peacefully... back in the old days when they were trading oil and weapons
2007-01-12 02:11:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Here's what will happen. In the vacuum that will occur from the lack of media attention, the insurgency will suddenly have nothing to do. They will be put in the position to put up or shut up. They will fail at trying to take over the Iraqi government and wind up dealing with trying to survive starvation rather than fight an enemy that no longer exists.
2007-01-12 02:07:30 · answer #7 · answered by Reo 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
A massave Sunni/Shi'ite conflict is already going on by skill of the area. And why are people so petrified of Iran? The media paints them as a monster which could only leap in a airplane and attack U.S. soil at will. Iran isn't Russia in the chilly conflict persons. Hell, truth be recommended, Russia wasn't even that gigantic of undertaking back then. Their monetary equipment grow to be ingesting itself alive and we did not even recognize it. to act as if Iran one way or the different has the prospect to even remotely pose of undertaking to us of a is to absolutely disband truth, some thing equivalent to putting a chip on your mind which could always feed your psyche with FOX information snippits each 5 minutes. we are speaking about IRAN men. you recognize, the rustic Saddam grow to be able to bypass toe to toe with? So what then? Nuclear Missles? Are you severe? no longer in trouble-free words do the superb analysts say Iran couldn't 'likely' improve a nuclear missle (and only a warhead, this does no longer comprise the technologies mandatory for coaching, thrust, and so on.) for a minimum of ten years, notwithstanding it may well be absolute suicide to attack us with one. Terrorist state? 3 guesses as to why terrorist hate us. Our freedoms? incorrect. Our custom? They dont' like it a lot, yet incorrect back. Our overthrow of a democratically elected chief (Mossadeq), and next push aside for requests to eliminate troops from their holy lands and repeated tries at nosing in on midsection-jap affairs ever because it grow to be chanced on that the overall public of the worlds oil reserves were there? Bingo! You hit it excellent on the top! no longer in trouble-free words do we favor to eliminate our troops from Iraq, yet we favor to eliminate our troops from the finished midsection East. Doing so would damage the extremist terrorist communities capacity to recruit determined youthful men, or maybe as each thing does no longer be fixed in an afternoon, it would deliver us that a lot in route of a operating courting with the international locations of the area.
2016-10-30 22:03:47 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I couldn't imagine they'd stop fighting. I guess best case would be whatever faction finally claimed power in Iraq wouldn't harbor terrorists and would be friendly to the US and Israel.
2007-01-12 02:07:35 · answer #9 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Our troops come home and the Iraqis straighten out the mess we helped make of their country by themselves without interference from the U.S.
2007-01-12 17:18:24 · answer #10 · answered by bisquedog 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋