Part of this idea has been mentioned in the media before but I have expanded on it.
Iraq's history begean after World War 1, "When the defeated Ottoman empire was broken up, three Ottoman provinces were combined into the British mandate (protectorate) of Iraq. After a short period of British control, Iraq became a fully sovereign kingdom in 1932." - The Economist.
Iraq's main problem is Shiite vs. Sunni and the US is caught in the middle (stirred up the ants nest). Saudi Arabia is a Sunni power and is a Iran Shiite power, hence the intense interest in influencing Irawi politics.
Why doesn't the USA recall the troops, back out, allow the country to be split into 3 like it originally was and let Saudi Arabia and Iran fight over the segments if they want to?
2007-02-20 04:39:26 · 12 answers · asked by David M 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I agree. I saw the 60 mintues show about people wanting a Kurdistan. it broke my heart during some parts and made me smile during others. I like the guy who said that Kurdistan would be a better ally to American than even Israel. he also called the war a liberation.
I agree that we liberated his people- but as long as we stop them from forming their own indenpendence we are becoming invaders not liberators. I was so mad when they said we want to keep Iraq one coutnry because of oil- we should be more focused on their freedom than on their oil
2007-02-20 06:38:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am a military wife who's husband is currently deployed to Iraq... recall troops and back out right now? LOL! The real reason we can't leave right now is because the Iraqi army cannot sustain the violence without the US military to help. Even with the US, there is still violence so imagine how it will be if the US was gone.
Also, this is more than just Sunni vs. Shiite. This is about people who think that freedom of speech, religion, etc is wrong and will kill themselves and people in the process just to get their point across. This is about a country that was oppressed for years and years and it will take a while for them to be stabilized (think Nazi Germany during WW2).
2007-02-20 04:46:59 · answer #2 · answered by niker_bokers16 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
replacing forex isn't the answer in Iraq. it really is a social and non secular subject that motives sectarian violence. it really is a political and non secular warfare between the Shias, who now have majority administration of the Iraqi authorities, and Sunnis, who now concern significant incidents of revenge because of the mass murders that occured at the same time as they were on genuine of issues below Saddam. the in effortless words way socioeconomic progression will stabilize is at the same time as political governence takes carry & remains consistent. (A democracy is a clean portion of Iraq who has truly not at all had peace because earlier WWII. Then that they had King Faissal II.) it is going to take a minimum of a decade for Iraq to comprehend its skill, per chance longer, if outdoors forces gained't provide peace a probability.
2016-12-04 10:20:08 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thank you for bringing a civil disuccion to this neck of the woods (it's a rare deal these days).
-
Backing out will do nothing but bad (I wish it wasn't this way, but it sadly is). It'll benefit the terrorists a lot more than the Iraqis. It'd be like trying to put a bandaid on an open wound instead of getting stitches.
2007-02-20 04:44:13 · answer #4 · answered by Mr. Info 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It would disrupt Iraq's oil production and lower the profits of oil companies. Remember that the poorest person in Bush's circle at the white house has an oil tanker named after her.
2007-02-20 04:44:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
This sounds good on paper, but in the real world I think the problem will only increase. The best answer to this has already been given by niker_bok..., I totally agree with her.
2007-02-20 05:26:54 · answer #6 · answered by Realist 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That would be interesting, but you would need the troops there for a while, at least.
I don't know. I think we can all agree....the Middle East is on whacked-out area of this world.
2007-02-20 04:47:40 · answer #7 · answered by Robert S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it is about controlling the OIL not about letting our happy tree friends survive.
2007-02-20 04:50:01 · answer #8 · answered by U-98 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
this is the begining of final solution. we r already in third world war but most of us can`nt be able to realise it yet. when the situation will have in point of no return position, they will able to realise it..
2007-02-20 04:55:31 · answer #9 · answered by Difi 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who will control the oil? Thats why we won't leave.
2007-02-20 04:43:59 · answer #10 · answered by ekim b 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋