English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Currently, any semblance of stability in Iraq is depending on the presence of U.S. troops to keep order. Seeing that, the U.S. needs to keep involved until the entire situation is resolved. In essence, to leave now would be to crap and not wipe. Sure we can walk away, but we would walk with a squishy crack. That squishy crack would be an escalation is sectarian violence, and Iran noticing that Iraq was vulnerable; most likely they would invade. More than likely other countries would get involved, possibly even Israel. That's where the **** would hit the fan. Somewhere along the line, someone would end up using a nuke and the violence would continue to spread. Remnant Al Queda forces and surviving supporters of Sadaam Hussein would be in the perfect element to spread their hatred. More attacks on the U.S. and other countries would occur, and there would be nothing we could to to stop it. The Middle east would be in flames, followed by Europe and then Asia. Who's to say we won't be next?

2007-02-24 13:04:20 · 5 answers · asked by Cyrus 4 in Politics & Government Military

5 answers

It will probably be along the lines of what happened in Southeast Asia. Violence will spread to neighboring countries. Dictators like Pol Pot will emerge maybe killing millions. Your metaphor of taking a **** without wiping is flawed. When you **** your pants in public you don't pull your pants down and wipe. You especially don't do it when you forgot to bring toilet paper (a plan) The best thing to do is pretend like nothing happened and walk away.

2007-02-24 13:23:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

To boil it down in my nutshell. This is what I blame on Bush, the guy holding the gun. It is easy to shoot somebody. Much harder to change their minds towards mutual profit. Bush would rather shoot somebody than change their minds toward that mutual profit.
He opened a can of worms and was warned to that effect. He disregarded the warning. Bush visited what on Saddam? Was it because we pulled up short in 1991 (recognizing this outcome, then) or was it for Saddam chuckling publicly over our misfortune of 9/11? If I were to step into his thought process I would laugh at the misfortune of my tormentors, too. In refering to us as the tormentors, we were the predominant force enforcing UN sanctions against Iraq , after 1991. There was a reason we used a half a million troops in 1991. That reason was neglected by Congress and this administration.
Now we are looking at the very reason you do not take down the recognized leader of a country. Because it leads to what I call the Hydra Effect. Like the Hydra (the Greek mythological creature) cut off one head and two grow in its place. Cut off another head and again two grow in its place. So I ask, at what point do we back down? How many heads with beady eyes and sharp teeth have to stare back at us before we do?

So what do we suppose taking down Saddam got us?

2007-02-24 21:53:36 · answer #2 · answered by eks_spurt 4 · 0 0

Yes thats, right because fight is not solution of any problem. i find a website that provide news of middle east is http://www.alkhaleejtoday.com/

2007-02-27 06:18:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

They will laugh at us - burn the US flag - embolden them because we are weak wimps

2007-02-24 21:13:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I see visions of fire, and slaughter of anyone still there not calling themselves a Muslim.

2007-02-24 21:16:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers