people (Iraq), in the middle of a civil war & they don't wear name tags indicating they are Al Qaeda?
(Hint: The US military couldn't get all the Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq if they had 500,000 troops there. It's like trying to find a needle in a haystack).
So since the US military will never be able to get Al Qaeda out of Iraq what's the point of having the US military in Iraq? Why not let the Iraqi Shiites & Kurds wipe them out for the US? Especially since they actually know who the terrorists are in Iraq & they hate Al Qaeda as much as the US does.
2007-04-23 10:17:54 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
hmmm nametags are required where I work. These are a lawless lot. Your idea for their extermination sounds better than the current one.
2007-04-23 10:25:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
To control the oil.
Seriously, there is no hidden motive here. The U.S. has a economic and political interest in control over not just middle-eastern oil, but oil reserves worldwide. You are kidding yourself if you entertain the notion that the war in Iraq is about fighting terrorism, or bringing freedom and democracy to oppressed people. In a way these things are seen as "added benefits" to the main objective, which is control of the oil.
Notice I didn't mention "stealing" oil, because this is not the case. We aren't exactly stealing it, we are just keeping it under our thumb for safekeeping.
Ask yourself, why is Hugo Chavez such a huge threat to the United States, but Fidel Castro is not? Because Castro isn't sitting on the biggest oil reserves in South America.
2007-04-23 10:25:50 · answer #2 · answered by truthspeaker10 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
you rather must be careful of your diction. The information contradicts your assertion that Pakistan is ‘harboring’ Al Qaeda. it is actual that there are popular factors in the Pakistani borders for which the Pakistani government has been actively in seek of out. regrettably there are countless provincial leaders alongside the border who sympathize with the terrorists making that activity even harder. yet you're maximum suitable in that the warning given from the onset exchange into, “any government helping the terrorists could be considered because of the fact the enemy and dealt with”. the actual confusion ought to be, why haven’t we ‘dealt’ with Iran or Syria, by employing far the biggest sponsors of terrorism? one greater component of misunderstanding ought to be; why isn’t or gained’t Pelosi, Hobson, Ellison, Lantos, Waxman, Slaughter, Rahall, Aderholt and Wolf, be tried for treason for going to Syria to fulfill with its’ management? Technically, the final 3 have been on a actuality looking venture, yet why?
2016-10-13 07:27:15 · answer #3 · answered by ghil 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would probably easier if it were just Al Qaeda, since they don't have a lot of support among the populace. There are other factions, though, and some of them have a lot of support, most notably the Shiite militias, who have a lot of support among the Shiite majority, and support from Iran, as well.
2007-04-23 10:43:45 · answer #4 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Terrorists need support from local population, like everyone else, they need housing, clothes, food, money, weapons, etc... If you kill all of the 35 million people, even if you miss the 3000 terrorists, there's nobody left to support them. Plus, after all of them are gone, taking the oil is an easy job.
It's like bombing the German cities during WW2... when all workers are dead, who's going to build the panzers ?
2007-04-23 10:30:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a good point even when I don't like the idea of not getting the job done. I think we need the cooperation of the Iraqis 100% to I.D the bad guys.
2007-04-23 10:24:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the only way the us military can lose is by leaving....the terrorist are scared to death of our soldiers........they hide behind old women and children when they see american soldiers.......so mostly t hey just kill innocent people so there will be a big body count for american tv.........by doing this they hope the democrats will convince the country to give up....it is very important to the democrats that we give up and leave because they know there is no way for us to actually lose and unless we lose they cant make bush look bad
2007-04-23 10:26:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
we should have invaded with maybe 500,000+ troops to stop any potential insurgency from even starting, if you are going to start a war, then do so to win or stay home
2007-04-23 10:25:52 · answer #8 · answered by Nick F 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No I can't tell you that- since I thought everybody has a name tag. Too good to be true!
2007-04-23 10:23:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋