Can a Bush supporter explain this to me rationally, please?

Question

I'm serious. Without name-calling or childish antics, could you explain to me how, exactly, making Iraq so dependent on us is good for them or for us?

I don't think anyone can logically dispute that they are very dependent on us right now.

So how is it better for them to need us there to survive, as opposed to us making them start to stand on their own two feet?

Everyone, I'm not asking what Bush's ultimate goal is. Right now, he is resisting forcing the Iraqis to stand up and defend their own country by giving them a deadline by which they have to strengthen their troops. He is refusing to phase a withdrawal of our troops to slowly transition Iraqi security to the Iraqis. In doing so, he is allowing them to stay totally dependent on us for an indefinite period of time. And my question is, why is that a good idea? People work harder under pressure. If they know there's an end, they'll be forced to take some initiative.

Answer 1

If they need us they are more willing to give us rights to their oil fields.

Answer 2

Glad to.
While the Iraqis ARE dependant on us right now, our goal (and what we are actively doing) is to help them become self reliant.
As their security capabilities strengthen, we can concentrate on continuing rebuilding their infrastructure and begin to leave them to their own governance (always with a watchful eye - we didn't sacrifice all this to end up at square one.)
The Iraqis are jostling about, trying to become comfortable with freedoms they have not enjoyed in living memory.
As this process unfolds, a vacuumn occurs...it is into this vacuumn that the insurgents try to take advantage.
Leaving them to their own devices now would simply ensure that our enemies would fill that vacuumn and cause us untold havoc in the next few years.
A free, friendly Iraq will do more to stablize the Mid East than all the 'peace accords' in the world.
For all the whining people do about the Iraq conflict, it actually was - strategicly - a brilliant move by Bush.
The handling of the situation an the ground was far less praise-worthy unfortunately.
The best thing for America (at the end of the day that is what we should ALL be concerned with), is to quell the violence by whatever means nessesary, police the potential of Iranian interference, and support a political structure in Iraq that is friendly to us.
This latest 'surge' (which I agree should have been done at least a year ago) seems to showing excellent preliminary results.
We need to support the troops AND support the mission.

Answer 3

You want an explanation, I'll give it to you.

Wether or not you think going into Iraq was a mistake or not, it's immaterial at this point. We did. In hindsight, it probably was a mistake.
Why we can't leave. Iran is the threat. Iraq cannot defend itself from them. If we leave, we leave a weak vacuum or void that Iran will fill. Iran is headed up by a nutball religious freak that thinks it his duty to bring the world to it's final conflict so his messiah will come back to life. He has said this many times. Iraq has a LOT of oil. Putting those rescources in Iran's hands is not a good idea. President Ahmainijad doesn't need to nuke the USA to bring it down. If they control even a third of the world's oil suplly, or even more if they manage to sweep across the middle east, plus don't forget he's good friends with our buddy Chavez down there in Venezuala. All they have to do to bring us down is starve us from oil.
Crazy? Most people think the price of oil only affects them when they stick the gas nozle in their car. "i'll just ride my bike to work, or drive a french fry powered car" is what they say. Not so!
When a farmer plants his corn, when he plows the field, uses a harvester, these all run on what? OIL. after he harvests it, it goes on a truck, taken to be processed, turned into that tasy bowl of cornflakes. after that it boxed up, put on another truck and taken to your grocery store. Trucks run on what? OIL. Virtually EVERYTHING you buy has to be transported. Can you imagine what the cost of a loaf of bread or can of green beans would cost if the price of a barrel of oil hit $200 a barrel? $400 a barrel?
See, they don't need to nuke us. it's would be very easy to starve us out.

Answer 4

We eliminated Saddam

We have helped them to start a free nation

If they are dependent on us hopefully we will have them as an ally in the region...

We won by eliminating Saddam...now all we have to do is make sure the Government is stable and not brought down from other influences like Iran..

For years the Bathe party ran the country..they are a small but violent minority....we need to see that the new Gov. has the tools to fight these types and is stable before we pull out or we will have to return...Just as we have now when the libs did not wanting Schwarzkopf finishing the job the first time...

Answer 5

I am neither supportive or unsupportive about this war as a whole but I will tell you that if you take a look at the location of Iraq, with respect to its neighboring countries (and our relationships with those countries) our being there makes sense.

It's not about WMD's or Oil or Peace, it's about having an "in" over there.....there are plenty of declassified documents relating to Iraq that support this theory, I suggest anyone who's interested in the topic look into it.

Answer 6

Because right now they cannot stand on their own two feet.
leave now, and Iran will come in and take over, and we are not ready to stop them militarily unless we go nuclear,and who needs that.
And if not Iran than Syria will come in, either way they will impose their version of how things should be run, neither of which would serve our interest.
A way needs to be found to get the Sunnis and Shiite's to get along, but that seems unlikely as the conflict between them has been going on for the last 1600 years.
Abandon them now would lead to genocide for one or the other, perhaps setting up our Army's along the border with Syria and Iran to prevent their interference and let the Civil war play itself out and then deal with the victors in that conflict may be the only way to solve it

Answer 7

The idea is that they won;t always need to rely on us to survive, that is the goal, early on like it is now their people have no strength and no idea on how long such a thing would last, they could possibly fear if they get involved and we leave them high and dry again like back in '91 that any who supported us would get treated the same wway the kurds did after we left last time, right now if we packed up tomarrow the 3 sects would duke it out and most likely a religious leader would get into power much like how Iran is today.

Answer 8

Dependent on us? What the hell are you talking about? They are getting their own government, running their own country (they were the ones that hung Saddam not us), they are running their whole way of life. And you think that dependent of us?

ROFLMAO

Damn you have a lot to learn kid.

Answer 9

2 answers...if we leave Iraq unprotected. Iran, and Syria would join forces, and take over Iraq..That would be very bad.
The whole middle east would be at war if that happend, and we would have no choice to go back in, and lose even more, and this time, Turkey may even enter the conflict. Are you willing to accept that?

Answer 10

Bush will tell you that his goal IS to have a self-sustained Iraq.

Answer 11

Well...we need new places to put up Wal-Mart s. Lets just say there are 200,000,000 Iraqi people. Can you imagine if each one of them bought a Coke? or a pair of Levis? $$$$$$$$$$$ And Americans love big cars and cheap gas. And if we pull out, it will all become Iran's.