Or do we just quit worrying about the middle east once we're out?
2007-05-25 10:34:37 · 7 answers · asked by Martin L 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
you can bet on it. if we just leave, there will be a bigger problem to contend with later.
2007-05-25 13:40:09 · answer #1 · answered by doctdon 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Given that we're the world's sole superpower, if the middle east devolves into chaos, and it would be if Iran is controlling Iraq either implicitly or explicitly, we would definitely have to go back in. However, that is only assuming we pull out. The mere thought of the backlash and complete disastrous effects that such a move would have on American foreign policy for the foreseeable future.
Remember, every intelligence agency on Earth agreed with President Bush prior to the invasion - Iraq had WMDs in everyone's opinion - even the French!
2007-05-25 17:43:45 · answer #2 · answered by Cyclimus 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Never. The middle east ? Has predated my birth by four year's. But most of our past president's have had the sense to not get directly involved. Or on a limited scale, whichever party. Eisenhower, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton. We can't just forget about it, ever. But we never have should gone back to Iraq. I never believed there was a reason. No WMD, no involvement with 9/11 by the Iraq government then. Now we are stuck in. Like the old "Uncle Remus" story. " Brer Rabbit and the Tar baby". That is a fair description of Iraq right now. To Al Queada it is a second front. A hideous drain on our resource's and men. We need to leave Iraq to find it's own equilibrium and put the resources we have into Afastigian.
2007-05-25 18:18:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Neither. If we pull out of Iraq now, Bin Laden, Al Quaeda and all the terrorists will keep our military and police busy with the terrorist attacks here in the US. The only reason there aren't any successful attacks right now is that the terrorist network is being kept busy in Iraq, and to a lesser extent, in Afghanastan (sp?). Just watch what happens if the damnocrats force us to leave Iraq with the job half done.
2007-05-25 18:03:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well we did not go in in the first place because we where worrying about the middle east. We should not have went in to begin with and now we have created a power vacuum that is going to cause instability in the region for a long long time. I guess on the positive side, if you are an oil man, the price of oil is going to be pushed up for years.
2007-05-25 17:41:24 · answer #5 · answered by crownliftman 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
"Have to" is an interesting phrase. Are we responsible for ensuring that every country on the planet has a successful government? If so, why aren't we helping in Chechnya or Sudan? Or even Mexico, for that matter?
2007-05-25 17:43:48 · answer #6 · answered by abfabmom1 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you will be content riding a bicycle, then no. OR, the environmentalist will have to let the US build more refineries and drill on US property (land & sea) nad folks will have to give up thier 'not in my backyard' mentality.
2007-05-25 17:43:59 · answer #7 · answered by Mike O 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋