2007-01-31 15:39:31 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
please research what you talk about, BEFORE you start talking about it...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1672908/posts
A: nope.
2007-01-31 16:16:06 · answer #1 · answered by Corey 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The caveat Al Maliki further is a huge one! the U. S. withdrawal from this area is unquestionably no longer as rapid simply by fact the suitable withdrawal from Korea or Vietnam. the reason: BLACK GOLD. If we bypass away, oil costs might desire to surely double or worse in the span of a few months. it somewhat is why the Democrats have not been furiously banging the table annoying for an end to the conflict even with having administration of Congress. they do no longer go with to be categorised simply by fact the occasion that had a hand in destabilizing the middle East (and oil costs). they go with to bypass away each and every little thing to the Republicans to make a mistake, so as that a Democrat will actually stroll into the White abode come the subsequent election.
2016-12-17 06:51:29 · answer #2 · answered by franchi 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes but even if america wouldnt the statement he makes would shatter last remaining good american reputation about the war because he being the leader of democratic iraq partly supported by america and mostly supported by Shiites during the course of the war asking the very people who helped elect him leave the country is a slap not in the face but in the balls because it can cause various images about americas handling of the war or any other matter involving iraq being thrown away by the head of state and what maliki says will be more powerfull than what the president of ameirca says because its giving the world a second different inside opinion from an iraqi point of veiw
2007-01-31 16:39:45 · answer #3 · answered by YR1947 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, he can, but Bush will not ackowledge it.
Bush will use his request to his own advantage. Bush will brand him a terrorist influenced by Iran, invade Iran and spend even more time in the Middle East stealing and looting 'black gold'.
2007-01-31 16:02:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
He could, but he knows that's a terrible idea right now
2007-01-31 17:10:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Technically, yes. But he would probably turn up missing.
2007-01-31 15:42:19 · answer #6 · answered by johnnybassline 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
He could, but the US won't leave until the last drop of oil is stolen.
2007-01-31 15:43:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
YES, but we r not going until we secure all oil interest, and protect Israel....
2007-01-31 16:23:37 · answer #8 · answered by DON 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Sure, but you think the US would listen? There would be another "regime change".
2007-01-31 15:48:39 · answer #9 · answered by neooxyconservative 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, & we would leave, but he won't. He knows that if we left right now he would lose his job & probably his life.
2007-01-31 15:44:30 · answer #10 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No more then Saddam could.
2007-01-31 16:29:47 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋