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

Wouldn't we have to deal with that situation eventually? Or should we leave the Iraq problem to our children/grandchildren to deal with? Let them clean up our mess?

2007-06-18 21:45:34 · 15 answers · asked by kitty_cat_claws_99 5 in Politics & Government Military

most of these answers have restored my faith in intelligent life on yahoo!

2007-06-19 00:31:44 · update #1

Kennyshoneypie: The "we" here was used to mean us as a nation. And, I hate to break it to you, but the President cannot go to war without the approval of Congress.

Mad boy funky: Please state some...any evidence that even remotely supports your statement that Iraq will suddenly be peaceful if the soldiers leave.

2007-06-19 04:22:11 · update #2

15 answers

na, we can´t leave.... and i honestly don´t understand how people can say we need to leave as soon as possible....

they only see it as,,, ohhhh poor soldiers are dying, we should end it and leave.... i mean i´m simpathic for our soldiers and have the tons of respect for them, but we can´t simply leave... iraq has been a thorn in our side for over 20 years... and you´re right if we don´t take care of it now it will only be a bigger problem for our children and grandchildren to take care of...

we were at the gates of bagdad in desert storm, we could have taken care of it then, but we didn´t, and now its a lot messier than back then..... hard to imagine what the problem would look like for our kids..... (you wonder why some are so worried about iran and nukes) we know they´re supplying with the road bombs..... i´m sure if they had a nuke they would supply that as well....

2007-06-18 23:26:49 · answer #1 · answered by James R 3 · 1 0

Iraq has no longer something to do with terrorism. The loudest (yet weakest) argument is that "we are scuffling with terrorists over there, so we don't could desire to combat them over right here." First, there's no longer a great form of info (the two way) that what we are doing has any significant impact on what terrorists exterior Iraq are doing. Or for that count, on what terrorists interior Iraq are doing. it is sheer hypothesis (could be genuine, will possibly no longer) that the insurgents scuffling with against US forces in Iraq might all of sudden initiate attacking US cities if the U. S. left. greater probably, that they had proceed their own civil conflict without interference from us. and those terrorists who're making plans on hitting the U. S. or Europe in all likelihood are not spending their days planting IEDs alongside Iraqi highways. they are already foreign places making plans their assaults. So, it is tremendously debatable whether our presence in Iraq is having any result in direction of combating different terrorist assaults exterior Iraq. the different arguments all middle around u . s .-construction, assisting Iraq set up a clean government, deliver democracy to the area etc. yet whether those could be valid objectives (and that too is debatable), the strategies we are utilising are hideously inefficient, and curiously ineffective. permit's look at it from a fee-income attitude. how lots funds (hundreds of thousands) and how many lives (dozens) did it cost for the U. S. to invade Iraq and topple Saddam's government . how lots funds (tens of billions) and how many lives (hundreds) has it cost for the U. S. to proceed to be in Iraq and attempt to stress them to establish a clean government. Which, by utilising the way, is nowhere on the threshold of being waiting to take over their u . s .. What we could desire to continually have finished is pull out after "project finished" and permit Iraq to establish regardless of government it needed. If we did no longer like the outcomes, we circulate in, topple it, and tell them to objective lower back. we could have finished that 10 situations and nonetheless spent basically a million% of the money and lost a million% of the lives that we've so a strategies under the present plan. So, inspite of the objectives, the potential we are utilising to end them are tremendously wasteful of the two aspects and American lives. And from any attitude, stupid potential are no longer a solid thank you to realize any objectives.

2016-11-06 21:56:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The best option now is to honestly admit that there was an intelligence failure and a genuine misreading of the actual situation in Iraq before the war and then to withdraw from there in total decency, allowing the Iraqis to decide their fate

2007-06-18 22:45:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Civil war; it is estimated that 70% of the insugents killed are foreign but they continue to refer to it ae a civil war.

I was in Desert Storm and my son is going to Iraq soon. We have already stalled this thing out long enough; I do not want futere grandchildren to have to fight in the same country.

We should get in there and win. Do not ask me what win means. If you are that backwards I do not even want to waste my time on you.

2007-06-18 22:30:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

After we left Vietnam there were nearly 2 million people killed throughout the region.

I really hope that our country leaves Iraq in better shape than pre- Saddam Hussein.

2007-06-18 21:50:41 · answer #5 · answered by Dina W 6 · 2 0

i know there is a very very good reason for invasion of iraq.

if the above didn't happen, the internal civil war would happen anyway after a period of time.

go to http://www.wikipedia.org and search for "iraq war" and read with an open but careful mind and you will understand what i mean.

mercury of love

2007-06-18 21:55:39 · answer #6 · answered by mercury of love 4 · 0 0

eventually my eye...try IMMEDIATELY...do you think for five minutes that al qaeda or any other terrorist orgainization for that matter would leave the chaos the pelosi/reid regime would leave in iraq unanswered. fat chance. what we need is for the liberals to get out of the way and have the people who understand al qaeda and iraq solve the problem.....popular definitely doesnt always mean correct.

2007-06-18 23:29:54 · answer #7 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 1 0

Nope, we are there and have to try and salvage a bad situation. We started this, we gotta finish.
This joker mad-boy-funky is a lunatic with absolutely no idea of reality. He's abviously a moveon.org poster boy, post lobotomy.

2007-06-18 22:32:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

When we start trying to win the peace instead of the war (which we won eons ago) we will get somewhere.
If we keep trying to win the war, even if we stay there for 100 years, all we will accomplish is stalling the inevitable for 100 years. It will still happen.

2007-06-19 00:19:03 · answer #9 · answered by tom l 6 · 0 1

Your correct that if we leave now someone will have to deal with the mess later. We have already started this, so we need to finish it. I think that by leaving, we dis-honor all the solders that have died.
If we leave now, we give the terorist a solid foothold in the world.

2007-06-18 21:56:47 · answer #10 · answered by rklee0122 4 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers