We overthrew Saddam and handed him to the Iraqis. We gave them a democracy, and saw them through successful elections. Why aren't we done? And remember, democracies rise out of chaos and civil wars...no amount of US involvment can change the fact that they will HAVE to fight to keep their democracy, as we have many times ourselves. I realize that they didn't ASK for a democracy, and may not be willing to sacrifice what it takes to have one, but isn't that their choice?
2007-04-27 09:21:06 · 23 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Iraq is at the fore front of the terror movement? ROTFLMFAO! I didn;t realize they were worse than Iran, North Korea, Syria, ...
2007-04-27 09:33:43 · update #1
We need to go, and make a loud offer that whoever wins the civil war, we'll help them rebuild. And if they don't HAVE a civil war we'll help them more.
2007-04-27 09:25:50 · answer #1 · answered by Brian 4 · 7⤊ 2⤋
I have posted on this a lot, but here's the short version: because it would set up a terrorist base there, and prove to the world that we abandon our friends and don't punish our enemies. One can think going in was wrong and still think we can't leave until the situation is stable.
Al qaeda is there NOW. We are engaging them NOW. Retreating under these circumstances would convince our enemies we won't fight, and tell the world Iraq is a safe haven for terrorists. (If we would not remain under these circumstances, when would we EVER go to Iraq?) And anyone who cooperated with us would be left to be killed - another lesson our withdrawal would teach the world. A withdrawal would show everyone it is safer to be our enemy than our friend.
I personally think that Iran and Syria are behind much of the "sectarian civil strife" because instability and forcing us to leave only helps them. I am far from alone in this belief. There is some evidence Iran is aiding BOTH shiites and sunnis in the "civil war."
Military force alone won't bring a solution; there is a political element too. But without a military commitment to weed out terrorists, there will be NO possibility of militias laying down their arms and working together. Al sadr, Sistani and others HAVE altered their actions based on the new US commitment. If we leave, we will see what a REAL civil war looks like.
Your question could also be directed to Nancy Pelosi. All she needs to do to stop the war is NOT pass a military budget bill. She can do literally nothing, and it will end. Just don't bring one to a vote. There are funds to "bring the troops home, now" even without further appropriations. Continuing it requires positive action on her part.
I have my own suspicions why a quick end to the Iraq war may be the LAST thing the Democrats want. I have posted them elsewhere here today. I am livid over this situation.
This is why I don't argue politics with friends. And try not to make friends with the people I discuss politics with on the internet, no matter how intelligent, interesting, witty and kind they may be. The issues are major, and feelings run deep. And I hate to argue with people I like.
It's been a LONG week.
2007-04-27 19:30:16 · answer #2 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well do you want people agry 5 or 10 years down the road because the USA up and left before things were stable.
The Taliban in Afghanistan came into power there 'because' when Afghanistan was facing soviet incursion, the USA helped train a guy and his fighters ( Osama ) and gave them some weapons and then the USA left.
Well with things unstable after awhile the nuts in the Taliban took over.
Thats what people are afraid of with Iraq.
Unfortunately I believe that they went about things wrong after deposing Saddam they should have surged right then. They should have closed off the border to keep insurgents out and then along with Iraq's policed out the resident terrorists.
The problem there now is so many foreign insurgents its a mess. I dont know if this can be resolved or not honestly.
2007-04-27 16:39:52 · answer #3 · answered by sociald 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We fight them there so we dont fight here/ The war in Iraq is the centerfront for the war on terror/ We have to stay until the job is done/
Im sure by tomorrow there will be a new reason. I'll check in with Fox News and let you know.
2007-04-27 16:26:58 · answer #4 · answered by Stephanie is awesome!! 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
There's still money left unspent in the treasury and our national debt has yet to alarm anyone - the Military-industrial complex laughing all the way to the bank with this latest fiasco the Republicans prefer calling a War on Terrorism.
2007-04-27 16:26:38 · answer #5 · answered by Ben 5 · 6⤊ 1⤋
If we leave now we'll leave a mess. The government IS unstable. It would be wrong to just up and leave when the situation is as bad as it is.
It currently is NOT a democracy. Bombings do not happen every day when there is a proper democracy.
2007-04-27 16:30:47 · answer #6 · answered by Liz 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Us leaving will be a huge coup for those who would like to destroy us. Also, there will be chaos in Iraq after we leave and undoubtedly millions will die. There is also a good chance Iran could take advantage of that situation.
Geo-politics is very complex but I don't see anything good coming out of a pullout.
2007-04-27 16:27:42 · answer #7 · answered by Brian 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I find it very ironic that gwb wants to establish a "democracy" in Iraq and is doing all he can to remove a "democracy" from the USA. ( wiretaps, traveling papers, phone taps without a court order, the list goes on and on ..... )
2007-04-27 16:29:29 · answer #8 · answered by Paul K 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Can't let the terrorists take control of Iraq and their oilfields and if the US leaves that is what will happen. Very easy to understand when you leave out all the bullshite.
2007-04-27 16:27:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes it is there choice. Whatever happened to the President not believing in nation building.
2007-04-27 16:25:32 · answer #10 · answered by mrlebowski99 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋