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

I know what you're thinking. North and South Vietnam. North and South Korea. But so what? The Iranians will try to move in anyway if we move out. At least this will give them a road block until we come back and swat them for breaking the very same rules they accuse us of breaking. Lord! let us make our own alchohol fuel soon so we don't depend on these crazy people. The British almost interupted OUR civil war over cotton in 1862. Instead they used less quality cotton from India and got by. Good for that. If not who would have helped them out in 1940? Not us! Perhaps if England fell, we'd take Canada under our wing and be a lot larger a nation, but WW II would have lasted into 1948 or later. By then the whole mess would hae gone nuclear.

2007-04-29 18:20:56 · 10 answers · asked by Don S 2 in Politics & Government Military

10 answers

Who the hell are we to do something like that? Make

decisions for other countries? Don't U think that's kind of

barbaric? I am truly puzzled and disturbed by UR question.

I think U should stop fantasizing, wake up and look at the

world with a fresh mind.

Freedom, Peace and Justice for all.

2007-04-29 18:33:27 · answer #1 · answered by ? 5 · 1 0

Iraq has been in a civil conflict for some years. It basically did no longer seem to be a conflict by using fact the Shia and Kurds have been dropping so badly. They have been being systematically slaughtered and starved to dying via Saddam. for sure a civil conflict is the greater severe conceivable state of affairs for the U. S.; in spite of the shown fact that, it fairly is not license for individuals to faux that Iraq became into non violent in the previous the U. S. invasion. in case you go away out extensive data on your argument (which the argument that Iraq became right into a mistake is a attainable one) than you lose credibility. The Democrats (or liberals) will proceed to lose with statements like this. enable's communicate with regard to the matters as they have been, as they're and locate suggestions. in case you state or mean a premise that the Iraqis have been greater proper off below Saddam you have misplaced the argument on the data in the previous it started.

2016-10-14 03:40:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Do you know how much the different groups you want divided HATE US?

THEY DESPISE THE U.S.

By creating 3 separate countries, you are adding 3 more countries to are list of enemies. 3 more threats.

I see what you're saying, but I don't think it will work.

2007-04-29 18:34:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Its all driven by oil money. If there can be a way to equally divide the oil revenues, than maybe these mortal enemies can stop the violence.

Easier said than done. Funny how money can make you love your enemies.

2007-04-29 18:32:23 · answer #4 · answered by USMarine Dad 3 · 0 0

Not sure if this will work because there are many hate crimes going on there because of religous beliefs. They have been killing each other over religion before we stepped in back in 2003.

That is one of the reasons Saddam was hung... Remember the attempted genocide case?

2007-04-29 18:25:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Really clever except, who's going to get the part with the Oil wells huh?

2007-04-29 18:25:14 · answer #6 · answered by Magma H 6 · 0 0

foriegners drawing the bounderies to many of these countries is what causes the problems of today. the days of colonialism are past. these people have a right to self determination, whatever they may choose.

2007-04-29 18:27:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I like your idea. But the U.S., the way it set the whole thing up, has no say in it.

2007-04-29 18:23:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

No, we should declare victory and leave!

2007-04-29 18:33:55 · answer #9 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0 0

I wish.

2007-04-29 18:24:21 · answer #10 · answered by freemanbac 5 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers