http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2007/08/09/afx4004547.html
This is the link.If the Iraqi Government doesn't want us there why are we there?Oil?Our troops are dying for a country who thinks that us being there is what's causing their problems.WHY ARE WE STILL THERE?It's obvious to me why but i'd like to hear what others think, or do you agree we need to bring our brave troops home before we lose another 4,000 to a corporate war for oil? SPEAK UP!
2007-08-09 12:27:41 · 7 answers · asked by J B 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
If he's a puppet then why is he calling for us to leave,that makes no sense.
2007-08-09 12:34:38 · update #1
I'm not sure what you saw a couple of weeks ago but if you read the article he calls for immediate removal of our troops.So where did you hear that translation of what he said?FOX,CNN?
2007-08-09 12:51:26 · update #2
Oh and i would think the prime minister of the country would know what was best for his people not those who occupy his country.
2007-08-09 12:52:53 · update #3
They are allready in a civil war and with 4 million displaced or dead Iraqi's i think we've already failed them sir.
2007-08-09 13:03:55 · update #4
because ur clever people with the exception of you, your there to take our oil.
2007-08-09 12:31:36 · answer #1 · answered by **Lilyanne** 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You (we) chose to remove the political and military power base in Iraq. Both the UK and the USA have a debt of responsibility to ensure that when we withdraw our troops the power vacuum is not replaced with a new dictator or that the country descends into civil war.
By remaining in Iraq we are giving the Iraq government time to establish an infrastructure and trained security forces. Once the security forces have regained effective control and the ordinary people take ownership of their own destiny, then a phased reduction of forces can begin.
If we abandon the very people we invaded to save, and a civil war breaks out we have failed the innocent Iraqi people, the Iraqi government and orselves.
I personally disagree with how the UN resolution was interpret ted, to justify decision already made. I understand and agree with the idea of a preemptive strike in the case of deposing a mass murderer, but get from the UN sanction first.
In my younger years there was always the threat of nuclear weapons from the Warsaw pact countries, and I was a firm beliver in CND. Now I have a better understanding of world politics, and realise whilst not a perfect solution it has kept the peace. Sanctioned force in the early stages may keep us from future disasters. Neville Chamberlin waving a treaty calling it peace in our time is a perfect idea. Had he of sent the armies to invade and control the rhineland might have stopped Hitler well before 1939.
2007-08-09 12:56:14 · answer #2 · answered by Vogon Poet 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I just saw a couple of weeks ago him say he needs for the troops to stay until the end of 2008 so which is right?
Probably was Fox or CNN not really sure. Did see it on the news though on tv.
2007-08-09 12:39:30 · answer #3 · answered by Ladybugs77 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because he's just a "puppet" of the Bush Government- and Bush has NO INTENTION of ever leaving Iraq..
2007-08-09 12:31:52 · answer #4 · answered by Joseph, II 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Oils not the problem- Bush is the problem...and why are we there? Because we've dug ourself into every hole possible- we're just going to keep digging I guess.
2007-08-09 12:30:57 · answer #5 · answered by Mr. D 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The reason we are not leaving is about as clear as the reason we attacked that country in the first place. Very sick
2007-08-09 12:30:34 · answer #6 · answered by barthebear 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
bush has wax in his ears.
2007-08-09 14:29:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋