"troop withdrawl" supporters.-----serious question!!!!?

Question

(this does not mean people who want troops to withdraw after the job is done, that would be everyone)

This is for the people who either want it done immediately, or on a "timetable" regardless of events. Keep in mind, I'm not asking you if you "think" it's our business or not to be there. The questions are straightforward.

--------------------------

If Hezbollah (can be substituted with Iran or Syria) ran Iraq. What do you think they would do?

Do you think they would fund terrorism throughout the world with their oil money?

Do you think their well funded armies would be a larger problem in the future, than Iraq is today?

Do you think the "new" Iraq would be a more dangerous, entity or a peacefull one?

Answer 1

There's a hook in that bait, yet you expect me to swallow it. Now I will show you how I can fill up on a couple of bites, and swim away leaving you to change your strategy.

1. First of all, Hezbollah is localized in Lebanon. Their interests are getting pro-Western elements and Westerners out of Lebanon. They're also about rattling a saber at Israel, who don't forget, attacked and demolished Lebanon in a 40-day war last summer. I don't believe they have shown significant widespread support for the Iraqis when they have their own problems to deal with. In the future, please check your facts before asking such a question. You'll get more credibility that way.

Second of all, Iraqi dislike of Iran and the Iranians still runs very deep. Don't forget they hold a grudge over fighting a pointless war for over 8 years which killed millions of people, a war that President Reagan sent millions to Saddam Hussein to fight.

Syria? Hard to say. Right now, they have a "marriage of convenience" with Iran in that they are trying to save themselves from a perceived US invasion. They also have much clearer goals of fighting Israel than any kind of territorial gains or puppet regime in Iraq. You seem to be equating the goals of a terrorist organization with the goals of a fundementalist government. The two sets of goals are alike, but not the same. They are in fact far enough apart to not be considered united against us.

Lastly, how do the Iraqis feel? When I was in Iraq for 2004-2005, the Iraqis just want all other countries, including their neighbors to leave them the heck alone. So don't expect any Iraqis to welcome the Syrians and especially the Iranians will be very happy. The short answer is: the question is moot.

2. Funding terrorism with oil money? They already fund terrorism throughout the world. Even Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (our "allies") have a hand in funding some terror operations. The short answer is: Yes, but what's your point.

3. Our military can beat anyone else's military in the world. Period. The problem is when it comes to beating guerillas. Hardly anyone can do that. The point of guerilla warfare is to force your opponent into losing by attrtition, which is already happening.

4. You have set up the previous four questions, which you didn't have your facts straight and your chain of logical argument was spurious at best. With all due respect to you, this question is pretty silly.

There is no grand sweeping Islamic terror movement as neocons would have people believe, just dozens of terror groups that would all harm the US. Some have capability to hurt us, most don't. They compete against each other, and all have different goals. That's the complexity most hawks don't understand.

Skylor Williams

Answer 2

If this happened:

Hezbollah would start out very weak because they would fight the same people we are. The Sunnis and Shi'a would continue to fight. Iran and Saudi Arabia would support the effort against Hezbollah because they don't like them either.

The US would most likely start working with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Iraqis to set up different Sunni and Shi'a control and expel Hezbollah. Then Iraq would eventually gain control through one of the militant groups. We could then suppress them in a similar way Clinton did Saddam in the late 90s. But it would be way more successful because the control would be new and far less effective from the new leader.

The new Iraq would most likely be about as violent as before, because that seems to be what the Iraqis keep doing. But they would be far less powerful because of all the violence going on.

Answer 3

The people of the region have been settling tribal desputes etc. for thousands of years on their own terms. They can do the same now. If we pull out the result may not be to our liking but stability would return to the region. If it weren't for their oil most Americans would only know of Iraq or Iran from a brief look at a map in 6th grade geography. As adults they would not remember where those countrys are.

Those people over there don't want us on their sacred land. The radicals see themselvs as protectors of that sacred land from infidels. The minute those infidels are gone they have no reason to attack them. (We are the infidels in their minds)

Answer 4

These are issues that we will have to deal with regardless of where our troops are. I personally believe we should redeploy to Kuwait or Saudi. Rest and rearm. If we are required to go in again, then do with adequate forces to do the job. Acting as targets in a civil war is doing no one any good. They talk about emboldening the enemy. Letting them have free access to our troops as targets emboldens them, they feel we really are a paper tiger. I feel most people don't want defeat, but they realize halliburton is the only entity who benefits from our current strategy.

Answer 5

Libs have often complained using the "stirring up a hornet's nest analogy. So, if I'm on my porch trying to enjoy some lemon-aide, and a hornet stings me once, I might say "oh well". But if I got stung several times, I would go to the nest and hit it with a bat until my family and I were safe.

To your question - until the nest has been quelled we must keep trying. Yes, there are other nests nearby, but this is the nest that we went to and leaving it as is will only get us stung on the front porch more than had happened previously.

Answer 6

Terrorism is, and has always been well funded with oil money.
We can beat Armies, it;s the occupations that get us.
No more dangerous, They will hate us just the same.

Answer 7

Radical Muslims are not only interested in recovering Isreal - that is an illusion. The Muslims have a saying "First comes Saturday (Jews) - then comes Sunday (Christians). I support the war on terror and our presence in the Middle East for the reasons that you outlined.

Answer 8

dude...this **** in Iraq is costing money and accomplishing nothing!!! There is no plan, there is no contingencies, no future analysis (but the one we got from Bush...saying the US will be an ever-presence there).

If you say it is in the best of Americas interest in security, then you're probably right because the US invasion has fueled violence and now America is much much more at risk for their involvement in the mid-east.

So go ahead...continue to stay there to "protect your families"...you already made the mistake of getting involved, so now you're part of the mess.

Answer 9

1. attempt to rule the west
2. without a doubt
3. of course
4. very dangerous and powerfull