2007-05-21 05:52:19 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1782088.ece
2007-05-21 05:52:54 · update #1
Sorry, I meant "within Iraq" They're planning a state in the Sunni heartland according to the news report.
2007-05-21 05:53:59 · update #2
Hence the reason Iraq is truly becoming no win regardless of what Bush people say...On one side, we have a Sh'ite majority currently running things...of course, Iran's government is Sh'ite as well, so we create a natural ally of Iran if we ever leave...on the other hand, we have the Sunni's and Al Queda teaming up, and no one underestimates how tragic that could be...so we've spent a trillion dollars on what again?
2007-05-21 05:56:38 · answer #1 · answered by gunkinthedrain 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
From what I understand, the Sunni's won't put up with that and will kick their azzes out. I heard last week that a bunch of Al Queda members bodies were found in a Sunni territory. There are many people saying that although Sunni's are using the help of Al Queda, there is only so much they will tolerate from Al Queda and tensions and resentment are already showing. Many Sunni leaders have stepped up to the plate and are making Al Queda leave because they are imposing so many fundamentalist rules on neighborhoods and terrorizing other Sunnis. Former Baathists won't allow for these extremists to take over either. I really doubt that Al Queda will be there long. If anything they could be a factor that actually helps unites Iraq just to get them out of the country.
2007-05-21 05:59:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
There was no credible evidence that Al Qaeda was working with Saddam Hussein at all. We invaded Iraq because the neocons in the Bush administration wanted to build a Democratic country in the middle east that would be friendly to the U.S.
If Al Qaeda takes over Iraq, then that is blowback, exactly what Ron Paul was talking about at the last Repub debate.
2007-05-21 06:05:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Iran is a larger terror sponsor than Al-Q. Though they will come together to form what they have called a calipate(sp). Al-Q does not have nuclear power, Iran is trying to use itself as a government to get it. There is a large goal to prevent this from happening. Both propose a threat to the US. To answer your question though, WMD's were the reason we went in. The fact that we can controll a base in Iraq once it is stable will help in preventing what could be a disaster. It is a bonus out of this war.
2007-05-21 06:08:54 · answer #4 · answered by mbush40 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
al qaeda wasnt in iraq as a results of fact saddam had finished ability and could execute opposition, i dont comprehend if al qaeda will take over iraq if we flow away. yet somebody could, and whether we went in for the incorrect motives we are caught, while we left nam quite much a million south vietnamese have been slaughtered.
2016-11-25 22:02:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saddam was a secular dictator who had no love for Al-Qaida and definitely did not want a bunch of religious radicals in his country.
I strongly doubt that Al-Qaida could have overthrown him.
Saddam would have probably paid off, if necessary, Baathist party leaders to retain his control.
Our invasion involved several factors including securing the oil fields and had little to do with WMDs or bringing democracy to the region.
2007-05-21 05:57:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not surprised a bit. We didn't invade because of this; this is occurring because we invaded. More specifically, because that dunderhead Rummy disbanded the army -- and therefore, the security -- and secured just one building after our invasion: The Oil Ministry.
Abu Ghraib, mixed messages, NO SUPPORT FOR OUR TROOPS in the early days (they had to SCAVENGE for armaments, for God's sake!), and something like this is easy to see as the result.
We didn't invade in a "war on terror," we created a self-fulfilling prophecy.
2007-05-21 06:00:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the Sunni area? Well, as long as the Shia area has the wherewithal to cut off oil revenues, that would leave Al Qaeda with no cash flow.
And if that didn't work, as long as they were in one central location, we could always bomb it.
They're kind of like roaches, these Muzzie terrorists.
2007-05-21 06:05:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes. had we not invaded then Al Qaeda could not have gotten a foothold in Iraq and all this would be a mote point. Al Qaeda couldn't have done it without US.
2007-05-21 05:59:42 · answer #9 · answered by Alan S 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Under Saddam they wouldn't have had a chance.Al quaida in Iraq is now stronger than it ever was under the Bath regime ,which was a repressive but SECULAR dictatorship,thanks to the illegal unnecessary invasion
2007-05-21 05:56:36 · answer #10 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋