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

purport: we can pull out and retreat 1000's of miles safely to our well secured borders

2007-06-05 01:34:26 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

8 answers

Suppose we achieve what President Bush has called "victory" in Iraq. (He defined it as a stable democratically elected regime.) That regime, to be democratic, must be dominated by Shiites because they are 60% of the Iraqi population. The Sunni minority who had been in charge since the founding of Iraq in 1918-19 must be expected to continue to fight a campaign of terror and guerilla war
because they want to retain/regain power, and are afraid of the revenge of the Shiites for their opression of the past 80+ years. The Shiite Government will take measures against them, the Sunni will seek help from the surrouding Sunni states, and the Shiite government will beforced to seek aid from the only oter Shiite state in the area-Iran, which is our avowed enemy, probably becomming an Iranian sattelite.

On the other hand, if we pull out the ensuing chaos will cause the neighboring states to intervene, and the strongest, Iran, will create a sattelite regeime in the Shiite areas.

I don't see the difference. If we stay forever we can postpone this outcome at the cost of exhausting our military and having no reserve for any other problem in other parts of the world. Is this acceptable? Not to me.

By the way, suppose we actually achieve a true victory in Iraq, (not just as defined by President Bush, but a real complete victory) do you think that will decrease the size or number of operations to be mounted here by Islamic radicals? I don't. We are presently the most obvious roadblock to a world surrendered to Islam. That will change over the next generation or two. First, the European Union will become more prominent and powerful, and because of its larger Moslem minority and its multi-cultural nature will appear more vulnerable. Second, China, unless it dissolves into an other phase of regional warlordism, not certain, but possible due to the tension between economic freedom and religious/political/personal repression, will begin to be more obvious in its repression of Islam along with other "foreign religions." This should spread the focus of the Islamic radicals for a couple of hundred years.

2007-06-05 04:53:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No matter what, we lose. We lost the day we discovered no WMD; no link between Iraq and 9/11; and the fact that this is a civil war. Bush is trying to finish what his father didn't. This is a big boy world and Bush doesn't know what he's doing. He made a tragic, generation lasting mistake going in. For the next 50 years, Americans will be ridiculed because of our ignorant leader who prefers cowboy politics. He should dow what all of his predecessors did, like Regan. Talk and negotiate. Then, he might have actually learned (unlikely for Bush) that Iraq was better off, and even the world, when Saddam was there. We have actually made the world worse. We've made Americans more unsafe. And we've lost every bit of credibility we have.

2007-06-05 08:43:53 · answer #2 · answered by unjuana 2 · 2 1

If U.S pull out of Iraq you lose.

-Well secured borders? We have all seen how well secured they really are.

-Politically, U.S would be red faced in the world and no one would take them seriously anymore. Particularly those countries that didnt trust U.S claims on Iraq.

-Hiding behind walls is not a winners strategy. How long can you stay safe?

-I know Americans think their country is the greatest, but it is still just one country out of over 200 in the world.

2007-06-05 08:40:30 · answer #3 · answered by jezza 4 · 1 2

Sorry but I do not equate retreat with winning however you define it. Don't make the fatal mistake of confusing a lack of conflict with peace. Real peace is when no one threatens you in any significant way.

2007-06-05 09:28:53 · answer #4 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 0 0

not sure what your logic is, if we lose we lose. We can not afford to lose in Iraq the issue at stake is not just the freedom of Iraqi's its the freedom for the whole world at stake, if it goes wrong here it will be a domino effect

2007-06-05 08:45:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Even a stalemate will be considered a loss. Bush asking for a ceasefire is a traditional sign of surrender, they are getting desperate

2007-06-05 08:56:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

even if we lose we still lose you mean. how many of our sons have we lost already on iraqi soil. 3,000 i believe last count was. we've already lost, i just wish our boys could come home, to a hero's honor, they deserve it. they've been through so much already and so young..............

2007-06-05 08:44:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Whose freedom are we fighting for? If it was theirs then we ignored it when their Parliament anted us to leave. I think McCain said the silly little Parliament people didn't know what was good for them.

2007-06-05 08:40:24 · answer #8 · answered by naysayer 3 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers