We have no clear-cut enemies there. We are supposed to be "helping" the Iraqis, and they seem to want to sit on their laurels and not "accept" the help. If al Qaeda has made strides in Iraq, it is only because of our presence there. If we get out, they'll leave, too.
2007-04-26 06:15:04 · 21 answers · asked by Joey's Back 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The so called war on terror is just a ruse, which was never intended to end. It is all a part of the globalist New World Order agenda. *sm*
2007-04-26 23:45:07 · answer #1 · answered by LadyZania 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If we pull out, Al Aaeda will move in and tear the government apart. Then it will collapse into a cesspool of terrorism. The government isn't ready to defend itself yet. Keeping all the factions together is tough enough, then you have Al Qaeda helping to tear it apart? Not good. Eventually, if we stay there long enough and strengthen the borders well enough, Al Qaeda will dry up enough so that the Iraqi government can handle it. It's just a matter of waiting and persistence.
2007-04-26 13:32:39 · answer #2 · answered by Brian I 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You are not correct if you think al Qaeda would leave. You are right in saying the Iraqis are not helping us. It is going to take more time for that to happen. Iraqis are used to being dictated to and not given a choice. It would also help if we changed the ROE and killed the terrorist where ever they go. Al Qaeda was already in Iraq according to the 9/11 commision report so they already had a foothold. I would also agree with your notion that the plan in Iraq is not working. I would say it is not working on the whole War on Terror. We should not leave Iraq becasue in the view of the terrorist this is surrender and victory. We need a much more aggressive policy on killing these terrorist and hurting those that supply them and give them comfort in any form. Not a policy that retreates and gives up on our obligations that we have commited too. To pull out would be disasterous and lead to millions dead and terrorist state that we will have to deal with in the future, most likely after another massive attack on our soil.
2007-04-26 13:28:35 · answer #3 · answered by dglaze11 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
hey liberal puke, this is a regional conflict and the big picture is stopping nuclear proliferation by having a presence in the region, you see dear we are fighting the Iranian dictators regime, the grand ayatollah sistani (leader for life) who is on record as wanting to destroy all who oppose him, you simplify the situation as you fail to grasp the complexity of the regional conflict. do you not have sympathy for the innocent people under siege by thugs? lets send you to Baghdad...yes those lovely people would deny you of your basic human rights , you would be despised as a feminist and as demonstrated viciously by the radicals denied an education, you see they hate women there hunt down gays and kill them per religious decree.Mark my word this conflict will go on indefinitely one way or another civilization is a risk, and i pray that some day no nation will have nukes...Jeez you are so simple you and your partisan politics, god bless our president and our troops.you profess to be so tender and loving have you no empathy for the oppressed? have you no idea how viscous some people can be over there? I have been there...first hand experience, get a grip woman.
2007-04-26 22:49:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its too late, Iraq is going to be involved in a war for the next 20+ years anyway.
We had no reason to go in there. If we did then we would also be going into Zimbabwee and North Korea. Iranians, Syrians and Saudis will all be fighting in Iraq for control of it.
America tried to be the 21st century equivalent of The British Empire. The difference is, that we have moved on from that era and have learnt from it.
This one moment in history will brought back each time to slap America in its face. A shame that a President sought revenge for his father and not revenge for an attack on his proud nations land on September 11th.
Vote wisely next time America. A warmonger is not always a good choice.
2007-04-26 13:25:06 · answer #5 · answered by Sally H 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
By everybody the the most obtuse. That's because it would be a surrender, a decision to accept defeat, and no weasel words can paint it as anything but a defeat.
The claim that al Qaeda would leave if we left is naive at best.
2007-04-26 13:26:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think that people believe that after all the work that we have already done in Iraq, pulling the troops out now without finishing what "we" have started would be like surrendering. I can understand that because my husband is in the army.
2007-04-26 13:19:57 · answer #7 · answered by ♥ash♥ 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Al Qaeda,Hamas and all other terrorist groups have chosen Iraq as the battle field to fight America.If we leave Iraq without defeating the terrorists,then the battlefield would shift to Homeland America.
2007-04-26 13:34:14 · answer #8 · answered by george n 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It obviously couldn't technically be a formal surrender, since there's no one to surrender to. It would, however, be a clear defeat, and surrender is a fine term for "willingly accepting defeat rather than continuing to fight."
2007-04-26 13:22:59 · answer #9 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is going to erupt into a full scale civil war and there is not a damn thing we can do about it. We can spend the next decade there, kill tens of thousands of American troops, spend trillions of dollars and none of it will matter. Let them fight it out and we can then deal with whoever is left after the smoke clears.
2007-04-26 13:20:33 · answer #10 · answered by beren 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋