I am pretty sure that it could take atleast that amount of time to stabilize the crazies in that region. It is a religious and civil war that has been going on for years.
2007-07-06 09:45:52 · 27 answers · asked by Beauty&Brains 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
We are fighting in Iraq because of OIL. Don't be fooled. Saddam Hussein Hated Terrorist. He hunted and killed them. They were never a threat to us and they aren't now. We had the capability to stop the terrorist and we just didn't do a good job. Regime change in Japan and Germany--Umm slightly different then muslim extremists who are willing to strap themselves with bombs just to kill people. I think you are brainwashed.
2007-07-06 10:01:34 · update #1
US soldier - THANK YOU for enlightening some of these people.
DBP80 or whatever you name was
"Think about it...if there was a debate, the democrats would use their majority and take us out of Iraq right now. "They are playing politics by saying "I will get the troops out". - I AGREE that politicians are lying except for RON PAUL.. Who could care less about that and just wants our boys home. And as far as IRan going in there building it up blah blah blah Bullcrap. That is just propaganda being fed.
Ever notice how every time you hear any neo-con speak it is about "terrorists"
2007-07-06 10:07:06 · update #2
OMG - you dare to stand up and question your government
LOL
Well bully for you - we need more people like you driving questions like this
Look - if we had a real war - we would know who the enemy was, what the targets were and we would could there, execute the war accoriding to plan and come home - we are NOT doing that in Iraq - why not??
You mention oil - while this may be the eventual result - I dont think its the reason we are there - I think we are there because we want to build a case for world government - there is no way for us to sustain a never ending war, we will wlak out of Iraq and a UN force will walk in - the begining of the end for independent countries - it will become the first country to be governed out right under the UN charter and thus breaking ground by taking a NON ELECTED body and having it govern a country - funny how they will slip authority under the rug - people need to remember - authority is never given its always taken - and world government needs a world body - I raq will be the first to fall
It wont be the last
2007-07-07 08:32:39 · answer #1 · answered by jimkearney746 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, and we can't stabilize the region. We're the ones who destabilized it in the first place, and the only thing keeping it from exploding is our being there. But we can't fix it either.
These people have NO interest in being a democracy. What happened is we gave the majority group a chance to take power, and they agreed to our "Become a Democracy" plans just to have a chance to get power and take vengeance on the minority group that once ruled.
So we have a situation with two groups taking shots at each other, and us in the middle saying "Stop".
Only, they never will. They hate each other. The only time can take a break from killing each other is when agreeing to kill Jews. And if they killed all them, they'd go back to killing each other again.
We cannot stop this. It's a religious dispute and a long standing feud, and therefore not based on logic. Eventually, we'll pull out, and everything will explode...and they'll survive. And a new religious regime will rise up. And the other side will oppose it. Because that's what they want. And to be left
alone.
And btw, the democrats aren't forcing the issue because they don't want to cause a constitutional crisis. Because with Bush having War Powers, he has the final say. They can't do anything about it that would imperil our economy. But that's another topic for discussion!
2007-07-06 09:59:29 · answer #2 · answered by Pooka 4 · 6⤊ 3⤋
The only way the country will stabilize is if the people of the country stop hiding in the shadows yelling, help us.
The people of Iraq need to learn to accept others religious differences, leave it out of their political process and protect themselves and stand up to those that use violence to get their way. Unfortunately if you look into the history of the region their have always been religious conflicts and wars, so has it ever been stabilized?
As far as Sadam, he provided refuge and financing to terrorist organizations that were against the beliefs of the US and Nato, he is largely responsible for the need for the international peace keeping forces in Lebanon in the 1980's.
2007-07-13 09:12:59 · answer #3 · answered by Charles R 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I love how the neocons are constantly going on about how we must stay to stabilize Iraq and reduce terrorist activity. Are they so obtuse that they don't see that terrorism in Iraq didn't exist until we showed up? Like you said, Saddam Hussein didn't allow terrorists or terrorism on his soil. He was Top Dog Terrorist and no one, NO ONE, was allowed to play in his sandbox. I'm probably being a little naive there. There probably were acts of terrorism under Hussein, but I also am willing to bet that retaliation was swift and brutal and very discouraging to further acts since morality did not hinder him from killing the innocent along with the guilty. There are two ways to fight terrorists: investigative police work combined with covert assassination if neccessary, and brutal dictatorship. The idea of fighting it with dreams of a free democracy is hogwash, and I don't think the United States should get too involved in the brutal dictatorship game. I think we should stick with more covert methods. Not very flashy, and it doesn't make for any good media events, but it gets the job done, or at least reduces the numbers of big guns (and every army needs its generals).
PS to dpb82: If you're so concerned about Iran attacking the United States then you should see that going in and removing one of their worst enemies for them was a huge tactical mistake. The best interest of the United States would have been better served by leaving Hussein right where he was, keeping an eye on Iran. They never would have pulled this nuclear build up crap if the big bad Sunni dog was still in their backyard, or do you think it's a coincidence we started hearing about Irans nuclear ambitions only AFTER Hussein was removed from power?
2007-07-06 11:07:34 · answer #4 · answered by Judy L 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
we cant leave an unstable iraq because then we will have twice the potential for terrorism we had before.
Lets not forget the stores of oil that will fall into the hands of the new regime whoever it might be. they could decide to sell it only to our enemies or something like that.
no there is too much at stake beyond the human aspect of leaving these good people high and dry for the second time after offering to help them
2007-07-13 10:30:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It will take 30 or 40 yrs for the stabilization of Iraq & it will lead to other nations in the middle east to form democratic govts. In case you hadn't noticed, we're still in Korea, Japan, Germany, Kosovo to mention a few.
2007-07-14 09:19:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
We need to get out!
Those people have been killing each other off since the beginning of time...and Gomer thinks he can change things?
LMAO! Ya right! This is a never ending battle between sectors of their country. Perhaps Saddam was a horrible man, but he kept their behind under control, there was no killing and fighting to the magnitude that there is now...
We need to get out and give them weapons if we must, but our troops need not keep dieing for a senseless reason...
2007-07-13 16:39:52 · answer #7 · answered by Joel H 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Forget it, the US has no intentions to stabilized Iraq. They just need to use this war to make another one bigger. Iran is next, then Russia or China. Those that are in Charge of your country have the intentions of creating a new world order, and for this purpose, they need another world war to bring everybody together. So the next one should come within 5 years from now, more or less. I am not even sure Bush will not be around by the times it begins...
Sorry for looking so pessimistics, but I am not American, so I cannot do too much to stop this thing from happening. I just hope that the Americans will wake up soon, or we will all pay a dear price.
2007-07-06 10:01:13 · answer #8 · answered by Jedi squirrels 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
The only way to "stabilize" that country full of crazies is to appoint another bloodthirsty dictator like Saddam Hussein. It's awful to say, but if you want the Sunnis and Shiites to stop killing each other, you have to have a strongman so ruthless that they'll be scared into staying at home, instead of going out and blowing each other to pieces.
No, we shouldn't stay there. Stay there for ten decades; it'll get no better.
2007-07-06 09:51:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
The Vice President said we may have to be there about 50 to 80 years so your Great Great grand children will be fighting in Iraq.
2007-07-06 09:59:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋