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

militaries job in Iraq? I thought it was liberate Iraq by getting rid of Saddam, make sure there were no WMDs, start up a democracy & leave & let the Iraqi Shiites wipe out the Al Qaeda terrorists that they hate as much as the US.

But now I'm not sure if their is any "Job" left to be "Done" because since the US military can't even secure the Iraqi borders they will never be able to stop all the terrorists & if they can't stop the terrorists there is no point in keeping them in Iraq to try & finish a "Job" that can't ever get "Done".

2007-04-30 14:24:32 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

15 answers

A stable government where the locals are willing to invest in their country's future. As long as everyone is telling them they have no future, why wouldn't they believe outside instigators that their neighbor is worth hating.

What would happen if the Left stop telling them that they have no future, & instead challenged them to create a life their that their breatheren have proved they can create in the US.

2007-05-08 13:10:10 · answer #1 · answered by viablerenewables 7 · 0 0

The American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing international law, under false premises.

Herein lies the high crime and misdemeanor. Consider that in the last week of May 2003, professional voices within the intelligence community, evidence from parliamentarians in the United Kingdom, and this administrations' own admission, have sufficiently documented that the invasion of Iraq was based upon known pretenses. Secretary of State Colin Powell has stated as much in a conversation with his U.K. counterpart, Jack Straw. In other words, the administration lied to Congress, they lied to the United Nations, they lied to the world and they lied to us, the people. Surely, if Congress can impeach a president for consensual fellatio in the Oval Office, they can do so for the high crimes and misdemeanors of subverting the Constitution.

Make no mistake about it, the cabal, that is the petro-banking- finance corporate profiteers that have orchestrated the coup d'etat that put the evil of two lessers into the White House, want The Watchman to remain silent. They want the good citizen to be a quiet citizen. The "patriotic" citizen should not speak out against the emperor. That's what the empire wants and that is what they want the people to believe. Simply put, the truth about this administration is dangerous to it. It is, that which portends to put an end to the Bush family assets of evil. These assets go back to Prescott Bush. I leave it to the reader to research the connection between Prescott Bush and the Nazi regime, the fortune that was made as a consequence of the relationship. A good starting point is the Google search engine. Just do a search at www.google.com under "Prescott Bush Nazi UBC 1942"

2007-04-30 14:28:56 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

You're right, that job was done. Now there is a new job. Osama has been marginalized. Iran and No. Korea are our biggest concern. And we are their biggest worry. Iran knows that they can't continue to build their nuclear weapons if Iraq is a pro-American democracy. That's why they are working so hard to convince us to leave. They recruit desperate people (there are plenty in the Middle East) to blow up some market or police station because they know it will play on American TV. It serves no purpose. They gain no military or economic advantage from this. But they're hoping to convince you that they can outlast us. It's a classic "strategy of exhaustion" as postulated by Mao Zedong. If we leave now, we will make the world a more dangerous place. Iraq will not be pro-American. Nor will they likely remain a democracy. We will have wasted perhaps the best opportunity to avert a disastrous war with a nuclear armed opponent.

Superpolitics - you write too much and say nothing. My brothers in arms were being shot at by Saddam's military in violation of the cease-fire, Saddam did have WMDs though not many, Saddam was developing delivery systems for WMDs in violation of International law. P.S. There is no "law" against a sovereign nation attacking another sovereign nation for any reason.

2007-05-05 14:40:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Just a little help: THERE not their in the first sentence of the second paragraph.

A little history lesson, from July 4, 1776 until Summer of 1781 the American Colonists fought the British for independence. SEVEN YEARS LATER the Constitution was ratified and a new government was formed. Eleven years between deciding to change the government to actually getting it done (as a side note, the British showed up again in 1812 for a second round and burned Washington D.C.) We might be suffering from SitComBrain: we want everything settled in 30 minutes. That's not how the world works. You might want to investigate other wars to see this war in that context.

2007-05-08 13:54:59 · answer #4 · answered by sturose1955 1 · 0 0

The job has changed numerous times over the years that this war has been going on. Initially, it was to topple Hussein and make sure there were no WMDs. Then, it was part of a broader "war on terrorism". Then it was to "spread democracy". At some point, the understanding was to leave when the Iraq government was in place. Now, who knows??

2007-05-05 05:06:00 · answer #5 · answered by AlanC 3 · 2 0

undesirable decision to pass away them there. This seems to be an eternal conflict at a intense financial value and the loosing of many youthful men's existence's on the two factors. There are adequate kinfolk issues to be solved. it incredibly is a high priced distraction from the real ones.

2017-01-09 05:07:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Good question. I think the job is to make it possible for Iraq to become a stable democratic nation. I don't know if that's possible, given the number of foreign troublemakers and how well they've managed to set the Sunnis and Shias against each other. One thing seems clear -- Kurdistan has been a success.

2007-04-30 14:29:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

The "job"?

Just stand there and look pretty until Jan. 20, 2009, and then responsiblity for this quagmire can be given to a Democrat.

2007-04-30 14:27:38 · answer #8 · answered by ck4829 7 · 3 0

We have proven that our leaders shouldn't be trusted with a pointed stick, much less Nuclear Weapons. I think we need to mind our own business until we can start electing compitent governments.

2007-05-07 15:47:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

seize the oil for the oil companies and establish a permanent base in Iraq and the middle east.

2007-05-08 13:04:12 · answer #10 · answered by DH 4 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers