Who destroyed IRAQ? Who should fix Iraq? Does fixing means killing Iraqs the more? Is it easier to destroy than to fix? If that is the case, what was the BUSH guys thinking before they invaded Iraq? Deos withdrawal of American troop means fixing or further destruction? Can persistent war( rather than peaceful negotiation) fix Iraq?
2007-07-20 14:25:51 · 10 answers · asked by pezulu03 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
REMEMBER, ALMOST ALL OF CONGRESS VOTED TO GO IN TO IRAQ....INCLUDING HILLARY CLINTON
2007-07-20 14:30:26 · answer #1 · answered by mary 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Below is what congress voted for, non of which has come to be true, I say Impeach, get out and problem fixed.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
2007-07-20 21:39:24 · answer #2 · answered by Jose R 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Iraq can be fixed.
American... sorry... coalition forces should leave Baghdad and retreat to the airport. No planes get in except coalition planes. Coalition forces should patrol the borders around Iraq. Allowing the militia to patrol their respected neighborhoods.
From watching PBS and reading on-line reports, the Iraq people do not like Al Qaeda. Take the coalition troops out of harms way. Look at the demonstration today. Iraq people want basic services restored -- Now. Let them have their country back. We should believe in them and let them "do their job"
2007-07-20 21:51:51 · answer #3 · answered by gary L 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's GW Bush and Cheney's responsibility to fix Iraq. I say we deport their entire families to Iraq and they must stay there until the country fits their fantasy that they had when they deposed Sadaam. Cheney can get his money from Haliburton and use that to put the country back together. ha!
But you know those republicans blame gamers won't take any responsibility for what they've done. They'll just blame everyone else and pretend they are perfect.
2007-07-20 21:39:26 · answer #4 · answered by Melius 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
See, the problem is that Bush sent in the troops, and he broke Iraq. Now he thinks that he is fixing it by implementing our form of government in the country.
The problem? Well, let's put this into another perspective:
If your car suddenly stops running, do you call the Maytag Repair Man to fix it, or do you take it to an auto mechanic?
See, Bush set the country on its ear, and he doesn't understand the culture of the nation enough to do anything to fix it. All he is doing by leaving our troops in there is making things worse.
In that area of the world, religion plays a very important part to them - from the way they live, to the way they govern, to the way they do business. It is in every aspect of their lives. What Bush is trying to do is introduce a form of governing that doesn't rely upon religion. Problem? People LIKE their religion in their government. They rely upon it being there.
I think that it is errogant on our part to assume that our form of governing is the best for everyone! Hell, at times, it isn't even the best for us!
2007-07-20 22:22:31 · answer #5 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Since Iraq did nothing to us, they did not ask us to help them remove Saddam & they really were no threat to America, it would be my thought that we should help them fix what we have helped destroy. Although we have not done all of the destruction, we did start it. Perhaps we could get Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iran & the rest of those countries that have harbored the Rebels & provided them with arms, to help clean up the mess.
2007-07-20 21:47:54 · answer #6 · answered by geegee 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am sure I am at the bottom of the Con replies once again!
The Iraqi's are responsible for their own security!
Anyone who has lived under the Saddam regime must feel the need to express their political side now!
It is up to the Iraqi's to secure their own streets and police them!
Saddam is dead
His sons are dead!
His close advisors are dead!
Mission accomplished!
We are not there to referee in sectarian violence and differences in their ongoing civil war!
If they want to kill themselves that is their problem! They need to kill the so-called terrror in their own country!
We need to come home and start the focus on America!
Come on!
It has been foreign policy first - America second for years!
End this and go after terror!
You know "The War on Terror" idiots
2007-07-20 21:53:11 · answer #7 · answered by scottanthonydavis 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
certainly NOT the pelosi/reid regime that got in the way of defense of that country. if we could just muzzle them than petreaus could do his job and this would be finished.
2007-07-20 22:20:07 · answer #8 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Saddam should have to fix Iraq, he broke it. But he needed to die real bad so we helped him. Now we are helping Iraq because we are good people.
2007-07-20 21:30:47 · answer #9 · answered by Tropical Weasel 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
I'll say it was broken already. Let's get the hell out before they make us pay for it.
2007-07-20 21:32:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋