Honestly, I think that it would have been acceptable. In history when countries went to war the winner got control of land or resouces.
2007-03-16 06:25:15 · 12 answers · asked by stunna3m 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Okay people, lets keep it real here. I am normally Anti-War Myself but I wanna see some opinions from the realists
2007-03-16 07:10:41 · update #1
Let's be fair. First we parcel it out to our friends who had the
armed forces involved. The UK, for example, had some prime beaches to replace The South of France and Spain
to have winter vacations in. Let the Kurds keep the northern third provided they police all other Iraq. The Iraqi are divided into secular areas having no mixed faith except amid the Kurds. Put the unemployed to work with BP refinerys and
Exxon/Mobile petrol pumping/shipping.
2007-03-22 17:30:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wish?
That's not the American way. Otherwise, we would have taken over Japan, Germany, Italy (God forbid...I'm an Italian).
Iraq is a whole different story. But according to the many experts on this site...we are not at War with Iraq.
Hello! I call it War...so doesn't Congress and the President.
Actually, Iraq is not the best place...except for oil.
But Iran is a different story. It is a beautiful country, moocho oil, and the people hate their government. Maybe you have a valid point.
Bob P.
2007-03-23 15:51:43 · answer #2 · answered by bob P11 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally I side with Al Qaeda, Taliban, Hamas, and the Iraqi Resistance fighting our troops. I would have sided against the Union army in its atrocities citizens of the CSA under W.T. Sherman as well as its efforts against the native indians and american bison, no less then I would have sided against Hitler had I been in the Nazi army.
Evil men like Bush will always arise but they will always fall also. The war was wrong to start, built on false accusations and designed for special interest industry development, oil and securities. America will never win it and she will be held accountable by the divine judge of mankind in a day she does not expect. No, we should not be doing these crimes against millions of innocent people.
2007-03-24 06:17:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You only want answers from realists and you ask a damn fool question like that. The US still takes over countries but instead of taking the actual land they out puppet rulers in place.
2007-03-22 12:30:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, that was true in history. Still is, for some countries. However the US (and evil westerners) are held to different standards - for example compare the hoopla over Israeli (won in a fair fight) "palestinian occupied territories" as compared with the total silence over Syria's occupation of Lebanon
2007-03-16 13:59:39 · answer #5 · answered by cp_scipiom 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think we should try to gain at the expense of the Iraqi people. Saddam was evil and capable of all sorts of bad stuff but the country as a whole did not pose a threat. Help them get on their feet and get out both our people and our tax dollars.
2007-03-16 13:31:21 · answer #6 · answered by joevette 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We toppled Saddam but we still can't control the country so your ? makes no since.
2007-03-24 13:09:47 · answer #7 · answered by richy 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The first Bush had the chance. He blew it. Thats why the 2nd one attempted.
2007-03-24 12:01:24 · answer #8 · answered by eddie9551 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sadam didn't defeat USA but Iraqi did.
2007-03-16 14:06:31 · answer #9 · answered by Pretty Girl 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
NO!
That's the one thing that sets us apart from all other countries. We aren't into it to get more land or anything else.
2007-03-16 13:59:30 · answer #10 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋