From Bush's state of the union address:
"Out of chaos in Iraq [upon U.S. troops withdrawal], would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens ... new recruits ... new resources ... and an even greater determination to harm America."
Countries such as Syria have anti-terrorist forces, and it is sheer myth that all the neighboring countries of Iraq support terrorists. The former president of Iran condemned BinLaden. The real truth is there are people in the Middle East who do not support terrorism or a militant form of Islam, but Bush seems more intent on inflating the situation in support of some D-Day mission of the entire Middle East. He says, "nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East," he too sounds like some kind of extremist. He insists, "to succeed in Iraq" will "spare the American people from this danger," but that statement is completely unguaranteed and there's no cause & effect relationship between the two.
2007-01-24 03:50:50 · 9 answers · asked by What I Say 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
---anyone who harrases me by claiming I support terrorism will be swiftly reported to Yahoo for abuse.
:)
2007-01-24 03:53:07 · update #1
The same proof he had imagined for himself when he connected Saddam to the 9/11 disaster... and probably with the same lame Zionist group of intelligence!
2007-01-24 03:59:37 · answer #1 · answered by United_Peace 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No one from either party denies Iran is backing Hezbollah correct. No one. Not Jim Webb, not Hilary, not Kerry, not Kennedy not Bush, not Cheney you get the idea. Al-queda and Hezbollah not exactly friends, though both are known terrorist organizations if you remove the blinders. They both occupy Iraq as much as we do. Iran is funding Shiite militias in Iraq. These terrorists are fighting against the Al-queda backed Sunni's in the same country. That is what the media would have you to believe be a civil war. It's not. A civil war is when people from the same country wage war with each other. These terrorists come from Afghanistan, Syria, Iran and I'm sure there are others. The same war was waged in Afghanistan right after 9-11 when we ran Al-Queda into hiding. Afghanistan is now a liberated country practicing democracy. Lebanon is another. you are right, not all neighboring countries support terrorist or a militant form of Islam. America is a big reason why. When our congress, Dems too until it became unpopular like a microwave oven that took 3 mins instead of 2.5 min to make a bag of popcorn, decided to wage war the President at the time happened to be Bush. He stated in his address that if you harbor Terrorists, or support them then you are an enemy to the US. I will not call you a terrorist supporter, but tell me who does not think that Syria and Iran are supporting terrorism in Iraq.
2007-01-24 12:22:14 · answer #2 · answered by mbush40 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's a pretty safe bet. The problem is that by removing Hussein from power, we have thrown off the balance of power in the Middle East. As much as I hated Sadaam, he kept Iran and Syria at bay. the problem we have now is that we are trying to build a democracy in the middle of an area of hostility. I have to agree with Bush that if we just left, extremists would take control of the country.
2007-01-24 11:59:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No one can be absolute sure about anything in war. How can you be? But you have to know that Iran can't wait for us to fail there? Why is that? Could it be that Iran could go in then and take out Israel and gain momentum until it had power over the whole middle east to use against us? Doesn't this set off any kind of flags? Your threat to report isn't cool, it means you can't handle opposition.
2007-01-24 12:00:03 · answer #4 · answered by Brianne 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's the equivlent of 2 people carrying a large piece of furniture and having one person let go and watch the other guy try to carry it before he drops it.
It's simply too much for the Iraqi army to handle. It would be disasterous (more so than the war already).
2007-01-24 11:56:10 · answer #5 · answered by Mr. Info 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Bush doesn't have to "prove" anything to you. He is the Commander-in-Chief of the military, and in his professional opinion this is what would happen. You can take it or leave it, thats up to you.
2007-01-24 11:57:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Shiites hold more power and will easily win. AND SUNNIS WON'T LIVE WITH THAT.
They will fight and there would be no peace.
2007-01-24 11:57:39 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Do you mean other than eyes and ears? It's pretty obvious.
2007-01-24 11:56:38 · answer #8 · answered by Centurion529 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
what would you have called Iraq under Sadam?
2007-01-24 11:57:08 · answer #9 · answered by TEXAS TREY 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋