2007-06-08 18:18:05 · 16 answers · asked by xirclebox 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
we are bound by treaties and nato regulations to support certain governments. if we really think they stink - we try not to get involved on either side - otherwise if the treaty holder ask for help we are bound to assist in some degree (not total war however) of support.
Some of these treaties are bad for the US and we should not get involved at all in Most civil issues, as there is no winning very deep rooted conflicts between parties who hate each other.
2007-06-08 18:28:41 · answer #1 · answered by Carl P 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely not! We must learn how to mind our own business and take care of the serious problems here in America. If we don't....and soon....there will be a civil war here. Bush was the biggest disappointment, however, Congress is also to blame. They are inept and pompous idiots. There are only a few good men in Congress that I would have work for me. The rest can go on unemployment.
2007-06-08 19:30:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
If America had a civil war and some foreign countries came in to supposedly *aid*, what would happen?
2007-06-08 18:23:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Can't imagine where you're going with this one. Iraq is a matter of national security. Getting involved in other countries' conflicts to influence the outcome in our favor -- or even just for the hell of it -- is a definite no-no. Whatever happened to the Monroe Doctrine? It's old, but that doesn't mean it couldn't still work today.
2007-06-08 19:27:04 · answer #4 · answered by Richard S 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because supposedly we are trying to protect some sort of interest we have in whatever country happens to be self-destructing at the moment! Who's making the money and what Congressman or Senator or Cabinet official is in his pocket? If you know that then all things are self explanatory!
2016-05-20 08:38:22 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Involved"? We started a civil war in Iraq. Should we have? NO.
2007-06-08 19:51:57 · answer #6 · answered by lcmcpa 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO an army should not be in another country (unless they intend to conquer it) unless the federal government of that country asks for aid
2007-06-08 18:26:46 · answer #7 · answered by thenewmadmax 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You must be referring to the Bosnian conflict that were are still involved with; the one that Clinton got us into.
It is estimated that 70% of the "insurgents" killed are not Iraqis. That is far from a civil war.
2007-06-08 18:30:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
No, we should adopt a non-intervention foreign policy like Ron Paul suggests to avoid "blowback".
2007-06-08 19:03:16 · answer #9 · answered by Martin N 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I am afraid it is too late for Iraq. In general, it is a very bad idea.
2007-06-08 18:29:39 · answer #10 · answered by bravozulu 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋