English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Shouldn't the USA at this point only be safeguarding Iraq from outside forces? We cannot settle the internal struggles for Iraq.

2007-01-31 09:42:26 · 9 answers · asked by Overt Operative 6 in Politics & Government Politics

9 answers

That's like saying, "Why is it unreasonable for Bloods and Crips to live in harmony with one another, and start up their own civilization?" Actually, the feud is much deeper than gang violence, but you get the idea. Saddam was an evil dude, but at least he had a cap on the situation.

2007-01-31 09:46:03 · answer #1 · answered by robtheman 6 · 2 0

Its interesting that defeating the Iraqi people and installing a democracy seems to have eluded the United States military .Within the first month of the war we made the mistake of becoming occupiers . The day we assisted the Iraqi people in toppling the statue of Saddam was a great day and at that point the opportunity existed to allow the local authority to begin to do its job . Yes Saddam's appointed police chiefs and others may have been just as fearful of Saddam and wanted a freer Iraq but we will never know for sure .
At this point it only makes sense to get out of the way . For me that would be complete withdrawal of troops back to this country . I can understand those who wish to remain close by and not allow Iraq to be swallowed up by other nations in the region but a stern warning from the United States could do the job .

The only hands that are not tied right now by some sort of military protocol with defined rules of engagement are those people battling for control of Iraq . The current Iraqi government is totally incapable of handling the situation and is never going to be in a position to take that control . As soon as the Iraqi trained defenders get real weapons the disappear armed and fortified to wage war against the American occupiers . We do not have a handle on the needs and wants of the every day Iraqi people . This is because they themselves are so divided and given to violence to solve conflict over power and control of their own nation .
Admit that defeating terrorism can not come at the end of a gun or puppet governments and allow the people to battle it out among themselves .
Poking a dog with a stick through a fence is bound to lead to people getting bit by the dog . Lets put down the stick and toss in a few bones .
We need to negotiate with these people . I am sure that if we establish boundaries and reasonable trade agreements that peace can be obtained in a few short years .
Remember Rome was not built in a day .

2007-02-01 02:35:55 · answer #2 · answered by -----JAFO---- 4 · 0 0

Iraq did no longer ask to be invaded or have hundreds of thousands of folk killed, maimed, widowed & orphaned over some very suspect warfare suggestion what WMDs Mr B'Liar? that's what we've been instructed right here interior the united kingdom Or " regime substitute " for the US administration, who's in basic terms objective replaced into to look after OIL. the 1st invading squaddies activity replaced into to guard the Oil ministry, no longer the hospitals, colleges or residential aspects. easy people in Iraq have been extra advantageous off decrease than saddam, there replaced into regulation & order, the place now there is in basic terms chaos. electricity shortages, over-stretched hospitals & people residing in worry as their united states has advance right into a militant magnet for battling the West. The Iraq government will now pay in the time of the nostril to rebuild their united states, sarcastically paying for the privilege from the comparable international locations who knocked it down! No, the West nevertheless owes Iraq. It owes vast-time!

2016-12-16 17:57:05 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

I do see your point. But let's play devil's advcate for a second. What if I came along, cut your home from the electric and sewer grid and said, "okay, now that you are independent, fend for yourselves."?

We set up a situtation where we eliminated a strong ruler (a dictator mind you) who kept the country together out of fear, in favor of a group of leaders who represent three conflicting cultural groups and who will therefore tend to always disagree. Then you throw in the zealous militias and the instability escalates to near civil war proportions. And we want to tell them it's their responsibility to fix it? Well, frankly we broke it.

Shoulda just left them alone and gone after Bin Ladin & Co.

2007-01-31 10:08:52 · answer #4 · answered by jimvalentinojr 6 · 0 0

Where did you come to the conclusion that it is unreasonable to expect the Iraqis to take over the efforts in their own country? The Iraqis know that once they take control of their own security, the billions of dollars coming from the U.S. will ceased.

2007-01-31 09:51:55 · answer #5 · answered by furrryyy 5 · 1 0

It may not be totally unreasonable. But it will be very difficult. They seem to be unable or unwilling to progress enough to rule themselves.

2007-01-31 09:46:35 · answer #6 · answered by lifeisagift 3 · 2 0

It isn't. Haven't we always fought our own battles. Even when we were controlled by a King. We would not have appreciated another Country coming in and telling us we could not do it for ourselves.

2007-01-31 09:52:24 · answer #7 · answered by Lou 6 · 1 0

Apparently, 210 million people get this. Unfortunately, the "Decider" doesn't.

2007-01-31 09:47:18 · answer #8 · answered by Hemingway 4 · 2 0

there is nothing more we can do for them, but stay out of the way.

2007-01-31 09:49:03 · answer #9 · answered by sydb1967 6 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers