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

Because actions have conciquences... what would be the consequence of us leaving Iraq?

2007-03-29 18:37:49 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

13 answers

First of all, freeing people from Saddam Hussein is not "unjust". Ask any Iraqi tortured by his regime. You read too much liberal propaganda.

If we pull out now, the Iranians and the other Muslim terrorists will take over that country because Iraqi forces are not competent enough to provide their own security at this time. It would be a stupid and foolish mistake to leave now.

2007-03-29 18:42:16 · answer #1 · answered by C J 6 · 1 4

First, what little government Iraq has now will collapse. Iraq will go from sectarian violence to all-out civil war. What is happening today will look like child's play compared with what will happen when we leave (if the government cannot hold the country together). Eventually you will end up with another Saddam Hussein-like dictator or an Islamic extremist government. Basically, if we leave right now, things will get a whole heck of a lot worse, for Iraqis that is.

I would say the main question here is can this country be stabilized and will our presence in Iraq for another year, another five years, or another decade prevent the type of civil war and bloodshed that will happen if we left today?

2007-03-30 01:49:30 · answer #2 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 1 0

Nothing would happen to America. Which is a response you are likely to see because American's are overall selfish and prideful for their country. There will be consequences. Some rebels may decide it is time to have a field day. Less people there to stop them the more problems they can stir up. However, Iraq could celebrate and rejoice at the US no longer being in their business. It is not America's right to decide that everyone should have a government like our own. I am not sure what they are accomplishing being their at this point except getting people killed. There will always be rebels and until the people themselves decide to rise up against injustice and fight back there will be no peace there.

2007-03-30 01:47:49 · answer #3 · answered by howie21300 2 · 1 1

There would probably be less violence, now that their common enemy is gone, but the sectarian tensions will still be there. Barring unforseen problems (invasion from another country etc etc) I believe that Iraq would slowly stabilize into three separate regions. The generally peaceful Kurds would stay in their northern province, and the sunnis and shiites would each have a province for themselves. And with enough people re-immigrating to their homes and with enough time, the economy might slowly regrow and give the central government authority again. In a hopelessly optimistic version of course. ^_^

2007-03-30 01:50:05 · answer #4 · answered by coolj821 2 · 1 2

The freely elected government would be BF'd in front of the nation's eyes.

Edit - I skipped over the UNJUST part of your question. Please ask about the UNJUST part to Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who all voted to approve hostilities. And if you want to use the "Bush lied" line then you should be ashamed of your leaders for being so gullible for having the same Intelligence(yes the Senate Intelligence Committee has the same info as the President) and still voting overwhelmingly to approve hostilities.

2007-03-30 01:46:47 · answer #5 · answered by meathookcook 6 · 1 1

the mahdi army of al sadr,80,000 shiites, would hunt down and kill the foreign fighters (terrorists) in Iraq as well as the insurgents. many shiite lives would be lost, but the majority shiites would prevail.

The mahdi army supports the present govt., therfore the present govt. would continue to rule. the present iraqi army is also majority shiite, and would work with al sadr's forces. many sunni soldiers might quit in protest, or refuse to participate, but it wouldn't change the outcome.

Iraq would have good relations with iran, but iran is persions, who dislike arabs, and iraqis are arabs who don't trust persians, so the relationship would be good, but iran wouldn't dominate iraqi affairs.

2007-03-30 01:50:24 · answer #6 · answered by CaesarsGhost 3 · 0 0

Iran would probably take over Iraq, gas prices would sky rocket, terrorists from all over the world would flood there because no one would be there to stop them or outwardly oppose them. If you think the violence is bad now, just wait till we leave.Those are probably the first three things that would happen.

2007-03-30 01:45:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

well for one thing there would be thousands of troops coming back to unemployment , the economy would shrink .. the companies that produce arms would lay off people .
there would be more 7-11's gong bankrupt ..
In Iraq they would go about their lives as they always have .. in turmoil...

2007-03-30 01:51:13 · answer #8 · answered by myopinionforwhatitsworth 5 · 0 1

There will be a civil war, same as there is now, same as there will be whenever we pull out. We just need to let the Iraqi's get it out of their system and not interfere.

2007-03-30 01:47:12 · answer #9 · answered by Surfer Dude 2 · 1 1

The sunnis and shiites would continue to slaughter each other. Also the Iraqi freedom fighters would certainly be slaughtered upon our departure. Any American soldiers left to police would be heavily outnumbered and under supplied thanks to the massive Liberal douche bag known as Nancy Pelosi. Until the DEATH CULT known as I-slam is cleansed from this planet, there will be no peace in the middle east. Sorry hipsters.

2007-03-30 01:43:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 4

fedest.com, questions and answers