The US will not "lose" the war in Iraq; it will continue fighting or quit fighting. The US is attempting to support the democratic options until the democratic government in Iraq can maintain itself. The US is not trying to defeat Iraq.
Whichever way it goes, the radical Islamist movement will continue to grow during the next decade or two. The West will be under increasingly vigorous attack by these forces.
If the US stays in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government, there will be a Muslim democracy in the Middle East, and it will probably be an ally of the West in the coming conflict. In addition, other Muslims that do not favor terrorism, are more likely to see the US as a reliable ally.
If the Iraqi government asks the US to leave, the US will leave. I would assume then that Iraq will not be an ally of the US in the coming conflict, but I could be wrong. However, the other Muslim countries will at least see that the US will meet its commitments, so they may still be willing to be our allies in the future.
If the US leaves Iraq in spite of the Iraqi government's request that we stay, the other countries will see that we do not keep our commitments, and will be less likely to be our allies in the future.
2007-05-14 12:26:45
·
answer #1
·
answered by The First Dragon 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The U.S. will not "lose" or "win" this "war' because it's not important. What is important that the Bush administration has unconstitutionally and illegally attacked another sovereign nation that in no way threatened, provoked or attacked the U.S.A. The Bush administration, from the day it became the occupant of the Oval Office, decided that it was going to attack Iraq - at any cost, even if it had to kill 3,000 innocent Americans on 9-11-01 or if it had to lie to the American people and to Congress about WHY it was necessary to launch such a 'war'.
There are only three reasons we're in Iraq:
1) The Bush family had a personal vendetta against Saddam Husseing ever since the days of Desert Storm when George H.W. Bush was ridiculed, criticized and humiliated for not 'finishing the job' and ousting Hussein at that time;
2) Cheney and his OIL associates coveted all that OIL swimming underneath Iraq's sands so they could continue to feed America's addiction to cheap foreign OIL and make themselves richer and richer and richer;
3) Ever since World War II, the giant U.S. military-industrial complex recognized the profitability of 'war'. So it bought up all the politicians, hired pricey lobbyists, and formed special interest groups to encourage and promote more 'war' around the world. Thus, the U.S. was involved in the Korean Conflict; the Cuban Missile Crisis; the Cold War; the Vietnam War, and Desert Storm so that 'war industry' millionaires could become billionaires.
A new 'war' was needed to boost the sagging profits of companies such as McDonnell-Douglas; Sikorsky; the Carlyle Group; Lockheed-Martin and Halliburton. From its very first day, this insane 'war' has always been about OIL and WAR PROFITEERING.
There will be no 'victory'. The U.S.A. will remain in Iraq until we've sucked every drop of OIL out of its sand. If that isn't the case - if we're there to 'bring democracy' to that country - WHY are we building the LARGEST EMBASSY IN THE WORLD on a 104-acre site in downtown Baghdad overlooking the 'new' puppet government installed by the Bush administration?? We will be there for decades, if not generations.
NEXT STOP: IRAN. The Bush/Cheney oil cartel also wants all of that country's easily-accessible OIL. Bush will invade Iran before summer if he can come up with a plausible reason that satisfies his 'ditto head' supporters ('weapons of mass destruction' won't work again; he'll have to find another excuse). -RKO- 05/14/07
2007-05-14 11:10:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by -RKO- 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
The war in Iraq is already won. It's keeping the peace that is wavering for support. Most of work there needs to be done by Iraqi's but somehow need to keep Iran out of Iraq.
2007-05-15 09:51:36
·
answer #3
·
answered by ringolarry 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
He for sure misinterpreted the message. in accordance to Robertson God informed him to run for President.....God did not say something approximately prevailing. according to danger in working something transpired for the period of the campaign that God had to take place.
2016-11-03 22:26:46
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Politicians and their buddies will make a ton of money, either way.
DE
2007-05-15 11:10:12
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Gee, RKO..... Do you think repeating these lies will make your wishes come true?
You need medication.
2007-05-14 11:26:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by dave b 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
In any case, ether a new war monger will, God forbid, be elected president, or, please God, a peace and justice lover (who uses deodorant and makes love-not war) will be elected.
2007-05-14 11:34:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6
·
2⤊
2⤋
people will die
2007-05-14 11:02:55
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋