I thought the enemy already had control. Isn't that why we are in Iraq, to gain control?
2007-07-18 10:18:59 · 23 answers · asked by bbbbriggs04 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
good point igi. nobody knows who the enemy is.
2007-07-18 10:23:37 · update #1
BULLSHIT. IRAQ IS ONLY FOR THE OIL GODS (EXXON MOBIL AN BP) TO GET IRAQ OIL TO GET TO INCREASE THEIR TEN BILLION DOLLAR PROFITS AND FOR POLIITICIANS TO BE LOYAL TO THEIR OIL COMPANY FUNDED CAMPAIGNS.
2007-07-18 10:22:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 5⤋
No, we went to Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam. Saddam was the only "enemy" when we initially went there. It wasn't to fight al-Qaida, they weren't there, Saddam wouldn't allow insurgents or terrorist to mess with his power. It was only after we refused to leave that all the craziness started. When you remove one dictator there are many others more than willing to step in to fill the void and that's exactly what we are seeing on a daily basis, a fight for power and control of Iraq.
2007-07-18 10:42:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope, not at all. No one has control over Iraq right now. Sadam had control, but we killed him. So now we are fighting them so that their new military can take over. Problem is a couple of other groups are trying to take control of certain parts causing a Civil War. If we leave before the military and new government can take over, no one would be strong enough to keep a terrorist organization from taking over.
2007-07-18 10:23:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Nobody is in control now. When yje US removed Saddam they created a power vacuum and fighting will continue until it is filled by someone.
This situation was simple to predict, but apparently not obvious to the US. It has happened in Afghanistan, where the leader can't set foot outside without a huge contingent of protectors. It happened in Easrern Europe with the collapse of the Soviet Union and it will continue in the middle east until another suitably despotic leader emerges. The US will then use him until he, like Saddam, outlives his usefulness and the whole show will be repeated.
2007-07-18 10:29:55 · answer #4 · answered by Nemesis 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nobody has control in Iraq and nobody will have control for some time into the future.
2007-07-18 10:24:05 · answer #5 · answered by The Stylish One 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the enemy had control, we would be seeing a much greater lose of American lives than we already are but, you are right, they are struggling to retain control thus, no need to question what would happen if we leave.
2007-07-18 10:32:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Just about everyone in Iraq /is/ the enemy, the few 'allies' we have there will be quickly slaughtered the moment we leave - it'll be worse than the Fall of Saigon.
2007-07-18 10:36:40 · answer #7 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
do you mean the 40% of foreign fighters that are saudis? your point is well taken enemy in Iraq is a constantly changing political label.
2007-07-18 10:30:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You almost got it. We have control over most of residential Iraq regardless of what the press says, Most insurgents are Syrian and Iranian, if we leave the doors will open for the Sunni massacre.
2007-07-18 10:23:52 · answer #9 · answered by NEOBillyfree 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If the enemy is al-Qaida and they are only there too fight us, we could do the citizens the a big favor and leave.
The enemy would follow us. Lets head back to their training and recruiting facilities and we'll fight there.
2007-07-18 10:35:05 · answer #10 · answered by From Yours Trully 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
when you surrender under a flag of cowardice, as harry reid will have us do you get run over and occupied by an enemy. for some reason the pelosi/reid regime doesnt understand that and it appears you dont either.
2007-07-18 11:02:08 · answer #11 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋