2007-02-01 07:25:00 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I'm not Arabian
2007-02-01 07:30:11 · update #1
Iraq is not so dangerous, there are only a few places where it is. The Kurds had no problem securing their own area, and many other provinces are peaceful.
Baghdad, the Diyala province, and some areas around the Sunni Triangle are the real hot spots.
(It only took a few weeks to take over because no one in Saddam's government was really willing to fight for him.)
2007-02-01 07:34:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It took 2 weeks because Iraq wanted to fight a War of attrition. House to house combat where they thought they would have a chance at inflicting a lot of casualties on American Forces and putting pressure on the Politicians to get the troops out of Iraq.
It was a good strategy and would have worked if another man was in the White House.
To be fair if another man was in the White House we probably wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq.
2007-02-01 07:37:50 · answer #2 · answered by David K 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iraq substitute into not the main deadly usa in the international. in reality, it substitute into not even the main deadly usa in the middle East. through consequence of the 1st Gulf conflict, the financial sanctions, and the no-fly zones, Iraq substitute into incredibly between the WEAKEST international locations in the middle East. The invasion substitute into not supported by our allies Israel, Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia, through fact they felt the area may be destabilized and greater risky if we invaded. With the present activities in Iran, evidently as though they could have been authentic. Iran does not be able to absolutely forget approximately international opinion if not for the presence of our defense force in Iraq (i.e. possibly they're justified to be coming up WMD's). for my section, we went to Iraq through fact they have been the weakest usa, they have extensive oil reserves, and shall we sell the clarification (WMD's) to the prevalent public. of path, the Bush administration forgot that invading a rustic is a lots different count than occupying a rustic. The invasion substitute into undemanding, the occupation is extremely confusing (i assume we did not learn something in Vietnam).
2016-10-16 10:16:38 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
2 words. SUPERIOR FIREPOWER. So something is only dangerous if it takes more than 2 weeks, 3 months, a year to take it over? What about a serial killer whose unarmed? He's not dangerous if it only takes ONE cop to arrest him?
2007-02-01 07:36:34 · answer #4 · answered by Chester's Liver 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who says we have control over Iraq? I've been watching the news and people are dying over there everyday. I wouldnt call that control.
2007-02-01 07:30:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
How could you call it a takeover if you're still fighting. Nevertheless, Iraq wasn't very dangerous.
2007-02-01 11:51:46 · answer #6 · answered by rcj1rcj2 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rush was comparing the murder rate in Iraq to Philadelphia and guess what? Philly is more dangerous than Iraq! ain't that somthin'?
2007-02-01 07:29:41 · answer #7 · answered by kapute2 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Iraq needs to understand that it would be much easier to exterminate them all.
2007-02-01 07:42:04 · answer #8 · answered by JOHNNIE B 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are absolutely right. They had an ineffective small army with outdated weapons. They had no airforce and no navy and no WMD's but by gummie they had oil wells.
2007-02-01 07:29:06 · answer #9 · answered by Lou 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because Saddam and his cronies fled in fear like the cowards they are.
And the mainstream Iraqis welcomed the troops who were freeing them from Saddam's tyranny.
2007-02-01 07:29:40 · answer #10 · answered by ItsJustMe 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋