We would probably create a military base in their country to keep our presense in the Middle East. We did this in Japan and in Germany after they lost their wars with us.
2007-02-16 18:05:11
·
answer #1
·
answered by Mr Mojo Risin 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Sucess under the present arrangemant is to stabilise the Shia dominated goverment which is in power now. Assuming that after several more years of fighting this happens. But wait a minute is this not the ultra fundamentalist buch of thugs just like the ones in power in Iran. So we are fighting to get another Shia dominated theocracy closely alligned with Iran, and by tying our forces there Iran has lots of breething room to develop nuclear weapons, a technology which they openly stated they will share with Sudan. We also know that Iran was behind The KLA fighting in Kosovo and the Chechens fighting the russians, and the fighting inLebanon. So now you have a nuclear armed terrorist state who effectively control the middle east. That is a bit scarier scenario than a bunch Egyptians with boxcutters.
2007-02-17 02:39:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by cimra 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
What Bush did was adhere to the American people to seek justice for the 9/11 which was preplanned by the way.
One thing you must remember about our Government, not everything you read or see is a valid comphrensible judgement to what happen on 9/11.
You can guess this much that the CIA was involved and knew about the attacks and what day it would take place, but used them for a free ticket to Iraq again.
We are talking a major consipracy so it was time for some CIA Officials to resign and they did as such.
American expendable???You bet your boots we are!!
As for Iraq, it will never be over./
Al's believe it or not.
2007-02-22 21:56:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
That depends on what you call "success". The governments idea of success involves being in Iraq for another decade or so, long enough to ensure that the Iraqi government has been fully converted to Anglo-capitalism, and will fight off the disgruntled Iraqi people on its own. Most of the money spent in the Iraq campaign ends up in the hands of corporate politicians and "scalawag" Iraqis who welcome the new regime, so of course they're in no hurry to "secure peace". To answer your question, nothing. Success lies in maintaining the crappy situation it is already in.
2007-02-17 02:12:56
·
answer #4
·
answered by redneckdownunder 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
What is your concept of success?
If success means that we bring democracy to another country, then there will be another country that fluctuates between being our ally and being our enemy....much like it has been throughout history.
If success means that we control the country then it would seem that we have one more political liability: how do we keep consistent control of a people that desire their own way of life several thousand miles away?
I think this is a broad question with no predictable answer, but I hope my two hypotheses were somewhat near the mark.
2007-02-17 02:05:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by krazyzima 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
If we can eliminate the terrorists' net there, we are victorious! Then war on terror will temporarily end until the terrorists rise again (must take a while)! We will also end the Iran issue since we are free now and Iran dares not do something stupid! Our troops will come home as heroes not cowards! Reputation of US military will be rebuilt and our allies will look at us with diff. eyes! Many things good will happen to US!
2007-02-17 03:16:45
·
answer #6
·
answered by holyfire 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
For the U.S. to succeed, Iraq has to succeed. We already won the battle...now we are working to stabilize the nation. If we are successful with that, which we will be if our govt doesn't cut funding, our troops will slowly redeploy. We will maintain bases in Kuwait, Qatar, Djibouti and Iraq...like we have in Korea and Germany. And we will continue to keep an eye on other nations who pose a threat.
But honestly...when the U.S. succeeds, all the democrats will somehow take un-warranted credit for it. Just like Hillary took credit for Saddam's capture, but now she says she wouldn't have voted to go in the first place. And the media won't report it any other way.
2007-02-17 02:18:10
·
answer #7
·
answered by tangy 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
I'm still waiting for someone to define US success in Iraq.
My guess is that it means the establishment of a puppet government that will pander to the U.S., Saudi and friends oil monopoly. That would be success for them even while the violence continues. Cliche, I know, but ain't it the truth?
2007-02-17 02:33:36
·
answer #8
·
answered by Josh G. 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Suceeds at what? We have already established a democracy. Now it's a civil war. We could kill all their leaders and convert them to Christianity. Christianity is 2000 years old and Islam is about 600 years old so it might take awhile.
2007-02-17 02:54:35
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Move on to Iran, then Syria, then Lebanon, then the rest of the Middle Wast, then Russia, then all of Asia and the south Pacific, then Europe, then Africa, then Australia, then South America, then Central America, and finally the dreaded terrorist threat of Canada.
2007-02-17 02:13:12
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋