Should we just leave 'em alone and let 'em battle it out?

Question

Iraq, I mean. It couldn't get any worse than it already is, right?

Answer 1

thats the least we could do cause we are not ready to compensate them for destroying their country.

Answer 2

Realistically? Yes.
Politically? No.
Now that we've stuck our noses where it doesn't belong, it would look much worse to just cut-and-run than it would to stay and try and "win".
But personally, being an ex soldier, I'm sick of looking at the paper every day and seeing more dead American troops on the front pages. These people are animals, always were animals, always gonna be animals.
I cannot see one single benefit to the U.S. for having saved or trying to save these people. As soon as "we" leave, they'll continue to massacre each other. It's what they've done since the beginning of time, and old habits die hard.
But this time, after the infighting is done, someone more dangerous than Saddam will take power, and "we'll" be right back over there.
We should have just gone there and did what any other invading army has done over time. Kill all the enemy we could, force the ones still around into submission, take what we wanted, and left.
Now we're babysitters for people who can't get along without killing each other.

Answer 3

Love to see them nuke each other out of existance, but that is not the way.....Would it be worse? I think so, would escalte into all out Civil War and would drag in other Muslim countries. Freedom fighters......Could be real messy......

About us destroying their country..how the hell do you destroy an enormous sandpit???? that has nothing to begin with

Answer 4

It is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to occupy a country which is in the middle of civil war.

Answer 5

Sometimes I think we should just leave and let them kill themselves off, but, no, we shouldn't.

Answer 6

yes what the h.e.l.l are we doing there anyway.