In your opinion, is it the USA's resposibility to keep a civil war in Iraq from happening? Personally I don't think so because it has nothing to do with the US, and if that's the reason for remaining in Iraq, we may be there indefinitely. Your thoughts?
2007-07-23 13:55:28 · 12 answers · asked by LIGER20498 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Republicansrstupid, the US will ALWAYS have nuclear weapons. China already has a few.
2007-07-23 14:10:09 · update #1
nope and we cant even if we try.
2007-07-23 13:57:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I doubt it. The capitalists of the u . s . a . and the ecu discover one yet another far too functional to wreck one yet another. cutting-area conflict has shown that nuclear weapons are ineffective besides because of the fact they reason too lots destruction to end any strategic purpose. as an occasion, nuclear missiles have been despatched to the Falkland Islands, yet would desire to not have been used. Nuclear weapons would desire to not have accomplished something in Serbia or Iraq. What became mandatory, and by no ability arrived, became experienced and nicely disciplined troops -- some thing the U. S. has by no ability been waiting to offer because of the fact formerly the conflict of Independence. i think of it is lots greater probably that the U. S. will invade some tiny, vulnerable third international u . s . a . -- Iran is a hazard, yet there will be others -- and get blown to bits by making use of that u . s . a .'s nuclear forces. And a fabulous component too.
2016-12-14 17:06:43 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who exactly determined that it was a civil war? The six o'clock news? Congress? But as a side note don't we go all over the world for that very reason? Isn't that why Clinton went to Somalia?
2007-07-23 14:00:07 · answer #3 · answered by hardwoodrods 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is no civil war in Iraq. It is a very small minority which the leftist media tracks around and gives airtime to rather than showing progress post-Hussein.
2007-07-23 14:00:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, we did create the conditions - lack of a ruthless fascist dictator to oppress all sides - that allowed the civil war to start...
2007-07-23 13:59:38 · answer #5 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, not to stop a civil war, but it is our responsibility to try to stabilize the region with governments less hostile toward us to ensure our own security.
2007-07-23 14:01:39 · answer #6 · answered by justin b 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is unquestionably in our best interests to try and stabilize this volatile region - if not, we will only be going back in the near future. Perhaps then, we will be faced with a better organized, better equipped and certainly an more emboldened enemy. It is far better to try and end this ideology of hate and domination now.
2007-07-23 14:03:14 · answer #7 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In my opinion, no. Each country needs to be able to stand on its own.
In the opinion of many people in the US, yes, because we caused the mess and thus are under a moral obligation to clean up the mess.
2007-07-23 13:58:35 · answer #8 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Of course we do. We're contributing to it now! It has nothing to do with the US??? I think you're about 4 years late with that statement.
2007-07-23 14:15:41 · answer #9 · answered by ALsensei 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it wasn't the USA"s repsonsibility to enter the last five or six wars either, and yet... personaly, I feel safer in a world where China has nuclear bombs.
2007-07-23 14:01:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If Bush started it. Even by negligence then the US is responsible
2007-07-23 13:59:36 · answer #11 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋