It would absolutely be most unwise. We cannot back down. We must not send a message of defeat to the terrorists by retreating. We must continue to stand up to the terrorist threat and take the fight to the enemy. We must continue to work side by side with the Iraqi government and stay in Iraq until the threat of Al Qaeda is completely eliminated on their soil. Furthermore, we need a strategy to deal with the nuclear threat from Iran because it's only a matter of time before they strike us first.
2007-05-24 12:56:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by Micah T 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Since you only mentioned effect on Iraq and not about nukes or other issues ...
Iran (Shiite sect - Shiite are the elected, Democratic, Iraq government) and Saudi Arabia (Sunni sect - against the elected, Democratic, Iraq government) are the main two countries sending aid and supporting the militants.
Iran is a republic.
Saudi Arabia is a monarchy.
At this time it is Saudi Arabia that wishes their sect of the Islam religion to rule Iraq instead of the Democratically elected government in Iraq right now.
Saudi Arabia is more of a threat to Iraq then Iran is ...
2007-05-24 05:55:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by friendlyflyr 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Wrong. Totally wrong. Dont listen to Bush, he has no grasp of what the reality is in Iraq, and if he does, he doesnt show it.
Look, Al-Queda has virtually no support in Iraq. No-one likes them there. The Shiites dont like them, most Sunnis dont agree with them, and the Kurds really dont like them.
What happening right now is this:
The Shiite controlled government is letting the Shiite death squads run free killing Sunnis in retribution for what Saddam (who was a Sunni) did to the Shiites in the early '90s when they tried to revolt against him. Iran supports the Shiites.
The Sunnis are being killed by these Shiites death squads and feel like they have no say in the government, so they do suicide bombings in Shiite neighborhoods as payback for what the Shiites are doing to them. Syria and Saudi Arabia support the Sunnis.
The Kurds really, they think everyone else is crazy and want nothing to do with either of them. Theres virtually no violence at all in the Kurdish region.
And then theres Al-Queda, that no-one in Iraq really likes or supports. The Al-Queda fighters are coming across the unguarded borders and are using the chaos and civil war to their advantage and to kill US troops. To prove my point, recently in the Al Anbar province, several tribes have allied with US soldiers to get rid of Al-Queda. Very few Iraqis support Al-Queda and if we "cut and run" there is not a snowballs chance in hell that Al-Queda would take over Iraq. Not a snowballs chance in hell.
The whole "Al-Queda will take over and follow us home" mantra is just an excuse to keep us there policing Iraqs civil war.
2007-05-24 06:48:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by Jesus W. 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
The phrases 'cut and run' and 'surrender' are simple minded dogma that the wrong wing has churned up to get folks upset about the fact that the US cannot prop up Iraq for the decade or so it will take to set things right.
Bush blew his chance. The republicans have lost.
The reality is that we'll have some forces on the ground in that part of the world for the next 50 years thanks to George W. Bush's failed policies.
Keep an eye on the news this week. We could be at war with Iran before the end of the month if anything goes wrong.
2007-05-24 04:55:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by Floyd G 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
I believe that al Qaeda already has threatening operations in Iraq. I also believe that our presence doesn't matter, it's a terrorist breeding ground, we made it that way, they're growing stronger and someone needs to own up to their mistakes instead of making excuses for it.
As far as "cut & run" I honestly don't know. Part of me thinks that our boys should not be over their dying, trying to fix a huge mistake unwisely caused by this irresponsible administration. Another part of me wonders what will happen to those people if we do leave. As horrible as Sadaam Hussein was, he wasn't this bad. Bodies weren't being dumped after being tortured because they're Sunni or Shiite. Children weren't being orphaned, maimed and psychologically scared on a daily basis. I don't know if I "agree" with President Bush, but I blame him for this and I think he should be held responsible for this debaucle.
2007-05-24 04:53:36
·
answer #5
·
answered by Pitchow! 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
communicate is extremely much less costly . movements are what i'm finding for and what all conservatives are seeking for . movements grow to be info . look into it . yet i do no longer anticipate a lot to come back from this . i think of we already comprehend that and we are in basic terms moving into direction of the motions as a fashion to show to the international that Iran has no objective of any stable by any means . we will see .
2016-11-05 06:04:07
·
answer #6
·
answered by dewulf 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
if we left Iraq tomorrow the Shiite majority would hunt down a slaughter the Sunni (Al-Queda) terrorists
2007-05-24 04:50:06
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
I don't think the battle against terrorism will be solved anytime soon. I think divine intervention will complete it.
2007-05-24 05:13:46
·
answer #8
·
answered by COACH QUI 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
unwise
2007-05-24 05:43:41
·
answer #9
·
answered by robert p 7
·
1⤊
0⤋