If China, Russia, England and North Korea threatened the U.S. with war if they didn't get out of Iraq?

Question

Would you be willing to support such a war for the sake of staying in Iraq?

This is a hypothical scenario. Please don't tell me that one or more of these countries would refuse to ally with the others or break off alliances with the U.S.... or that they have interests that would overcome such a scenario.

Suspend all of that for the time being. For the purposes of this question these countries HAVE threatened war and will go to war unless their demand is met.

Can you folks read?

Finally, a few straight answers. Thanks! :)

Answer 1

That's way more persuasion than I would need. I am more than convinced this is a war for plunder by the few, and also Hegemony over the Middle East Oil Region. But even if I wasn't so convinced, such an array of power lined up against us would only be worth resisting if we were in all out war and had no other choice, for we would certainly suffer such a loss of of national treasure, both in blood and resources, that it would set us back for a long time, assuming we were victorious. So, to answer your question directly, I would most certainly support leaving Iraq now, and wouldn't hesitate to do so against a threat like that.
Bush, however, has complete disdain for world opinion, as these invasions have clearly shown, so his response would not be so easy to calculate.

Answer 2

Russia would possibly take area with squashing North Korea in the adventure that they tried some thing. Russia couldn't care a lot less anymore because the chilly conflict, and North Korea threatens international protection, diplomatic and most economical interests - i'd imagine that that they had prefer to make certain the thorn in the *** NK has come lengthy gone to boot. China does no longer take area at throughout combating - that that they had quite basically make money off the aspect and enable people wrestle it out between one yet another. in trouble-free terms aspect China would ever attempt combating a conflict over will be Taiwan. in the different case, no longer some thing in any respect. that is hostile to their nationwide interests.

Answer 3

I know you have advised me to suspend all reason on this issue for the time being and focus on the hypothetical however that really isn't ENTIRELY possible. To answer this question under such premise would be attacking the straw man, so to speak. This answer will have to suffice and I believe that it still explains the sentiment that you are seeking behind the hypothetical specifics.

If we faced an escalation in war just for being in the present war I still would not want the US to pull out. Regardless of under what premise you believe the US entered Iraq or whether you believe it was right or wrong that won't change the fact that we are there. We cannot leave until we have finished what we started for 2 reasons.

1. We made promises to the Iraqi people that we MUST keep. Much of the Anti-American sentiment that has been circulating in that region for the past couple of decades is due to this very same mistake. The middle east was very Pro-American until they felt that we left them "high and dry" after warring with Russia. If this same action failed us before why would it work now?

2. I personally do not believe we are wrong. I do not believe we are currently there to oppress. I do not believe we went to oppress, though I know we differ on this point. Insurgents and Iraqis are 2 different groups. Why we remain beyond our initial reasons for occupation is for cleansing. Leaving would be tantamount to oppression in that the innocent Iraqis would suffer the ills at the hands of the insurgents.

As stated above submitting to your idea that we would be all alone in a Third World War for the sake of question is a logical fallacy. It is a failed question in an attempt to beget a failed answer. In order to submit to the premises you set forth I would have to first submit to a belief that I do not hold and could not truthfully answer based on my beliefs. If I disagree with you (I do) I cannot be required to pretend I agree on one issue just to answer how I would feel on another. We are the largest of the money keepers in this world and we are needed enough that this will never happen.

While I see your intention with the question I feel that it is similar to asking me to believe for a moment that a someone is the scientific equivalent to dirt then answering if I would walk on them.

Answer 4

Wow you have asked a tough one, not so sure I am willing to think this hard today.

Well, just following your scenario, which I think is flawed, but just to humor you, hmmm, let me see....guess I am stalling! LOL

I guess I would first have to weigh the pros and cons, the advantages and disadvantages, and what would be won and lost in defying these four nations.

For example, even if I believed with all my heart that staying in Iraq was the right thing to do, would I do so knowing the U.S.A would be annihilated? Probably not, I think under that scenario, I would stand down until my chances of success were greater. BTW, it is not the tossing in of England that causes me to say this, I would say this even it were just the two countries of China and Russia.

Now, on the other hand, I think we do have the equivalent of countries threatening us, but so far, none of the super powers, that is, even with Iran and North Korean acting in tandem, I believe we would/will be victorious.

Part of my ambivalence lies in the fact I think we have fought this war with Iraq with a lot of tactical mistakes. I like George Bush as president, and I support a lot of his actions, but I fear and believe he has had some poor advice on how to handle the war in Iraq.

Will you please comment later as to the intent of your question, sorry I must be brain dead this morning, for the life of me cannot figure it out, though I suspect part of it lies in the scenario of England joining the others. Help!!

Answer 5

It would be easy to rule out N Korea as they do not have the strength to do much and you can bet that their attempt at a nuclear attack would never got off the ground (pun intended)

England already has troops in Iraq and is not on good terms with any of the other countries you mentioned to break their US, UK alliance (one could make the argument that the US is the only thing that keeps England safe)

Despite what you hear and see, there are strong economic ties between the US and China, going back to the Nixon years, that war would seriously hamper.

While Russia still has a lot of political weight in parts of the world, its economic and military strength is insufficient to support any action.

Now take the four all together,
one is socialististic /democratic (England)
one is communistic /democratic (Russia)
One is a pure dictatorship (N Korea)
Not really what I would call China

I do not see them coming together in any kind of alliance that would effectively support a war effort.

This leads me to the part of your statement of "Theratened". In the scope of combat either on a personal level or world wide level, one had best be ready to back up "threatened" with action.

I do not see that as a real possibility. Now, as for the hypothetical part. I have to return the question to you, would these countries risk what they already have for the possibility of nuclear winter?

Faced with those choices, my response as an American, I say take your best shot and make it a good one, cause we gonna blast you back into the stone age.

Answer 6

The Iraq war was wrong to begin with. But if all 4 of those countries were to threaten the U.S with war, damn right I'd be for getting out. You have 3 super powers and one crazy man from North Korea, all with pretty cut throat leaders with the exception of England. A war like that would be a world war and nothing short of it. And, they all have nukes including the U.S. Not to back out would imperil the entire planet let alone the citizens of our country. I don't like the idea of my children or family being fried by nukes for the sake of some arrogant president who isn't worth the pot he pisses in.

Answer 7

I'm with those who need little motivation to leave Iraq.
Having countries threaten us would probably be lost on the current administration. But it would compel Americans already against the war to demand withdrawal.

Answer 8

English are our best friedns and they will never threaten with a way against us. China is our best business partner and they will also never do that. Russia, N. Korea and Iran together may bring some pressure with remote possibility, but that risk is also being mitigated effectively.

So us coming out of Iraq and Afgan will definetely based on the principles and threats to our national security more than anything else. Amerian win will transform the areas in a positive way, by making some countries keep politics and reigion seperate.

So in nutshell, I do not think threats by any other country will have any impact on these wars.

Answer 9

If it was just Russia and N.K. I would support telling them to go to hell.
Since you put England and China that does make it harder. So I would have to say for diplomatic reason right is right we should leave Iraq,,,right before we unload a nuclear assault that would leave Baghdad uninhabitable for 1000 years.

Answer 10

Since I never supported this lie of a war in the first place the answer is easy for me. NO!

I mean face it. Our miltary is so over extended we don't even have the resources to go after Iran and Syria; which the Bush admin. would have already done if possible.