Many of us cheered when Saddam Hassien was overthrown and captured later on. Thousands cheered when his statue was toppled in Bagdad.
We cheered when our fathers and brothers sisters and mothers, U.S. soilders one and all helped to birth this new found government. With the help of millions of Iraqi's why are we so quick to "fund and run?".
No one would leave a new born baby and abandon it to the elements or to enemies to destroy it. Why should we surrender protecting this new born country of freedom to the elements that want to enslave it again?
2007-02-05 12:41:48 · 6 answers · asked by Uncle Remus 54 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Don't say that "no one' would abandon a newborn. Society has many examples of neglect. However, the honorable and responsible thing to do is help raise, nurture and support a child. Even if that child is a fledgling democracy. People seem to forget that there are many threats in the region, and if those regimes were to get control of Iraq, then we will not be able to control the horrors that will come.
There is a big dangerous world out there, and no matter who is in the White House, we Americans will always be a target. We must keep these threats at bay, and prevent further destruction to our culture. Millions of Americans want us to withdraw from the Middle East, but they forget that Iran is a lurking danger.
We cannot allow Nuclear Weapons be held by people who will use them against us, our interests or our allies. If we retreat from this war, we will be viewed as a weak nation, and millions WILL die.
Does anyone really think that the 19 hijackers on September 11th, if they had a Nuke, would have hesitated getting it on board one of those planes?
Well, if Iran, North Korea, or any other rouge nation get the bomb, or the ability to deliver it....they will. The only way to prevent this is by having a large military presence in the middle east.....Thank God that we do.
2007-02-05 12:53:07 · answer #1 · answered by FRANKFUSS 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I didn't cheer when Saddam was overthrown, nor when when U.S. soldiers still-birthed the instantly corrupt Iraqi government. Democracy has never successfully been spread by military force and it never will be. It comes from the people or it means nothing. Bush never meant to spread freedom and democracy anyway, any more than he was looking for W.M.D.s Your new born baby is the Devil's.
2007-02-05 12:52:30 · answer #2 · answered by socrates 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is time for the "new born baby" to grow up and take care of itself without killing more Americans and more civilans in Iraq. It is a country divided by two in a civil war--wheres the freedom?
2007-02-05 12:46:02 · answer #3 · answered by plasma71104 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
this country is not a 'newborn baby'. it's an uncontrollable teenager who has just been given too much freedom and is out of control. we had someone there to take care of the teenager for us (saddam) but his head got a bit too big. now we need to find someone like him that we can control again and that side of the world won't be our problem no more. our people shouldn't be over there, let them deal with their own problems, there's not much we can do to fix it now.
2007-02-05 12:48:53 · answer #4 · answered by bosco6159 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Iraq wasn't allowed to come to term, but was aborted by Dr Bush who's now realizing he's busted and is trying to resuscitate the drooling little premature disaster whose lungs don't work, who has no immune system, and whose mother wasn't even asking for an abortion when he gave her one by force.
Nobody but the likes of Ahmed Chalabi asked us to be Iraq's midwife. We waltzed in and yanked that baby out before it was able to survive on its own. That's not called birthing---it's forcible late-term abortion.
2007-02-05 12:47:53 · answer #5 · answered by oimwoomwio 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Iraq is slightly more expensive and deadly than a new born baby is.
2007-02-05 12:47:33 · answer #6 · answered by Habester 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋