Now that Iraq is good and messed up, if we were to leave.. and IF Iran and Saudi Arabia started squabbling over the remains the fear among many leaders is that it would cause a national energy crisis. Do you feel this is true.. Is Iraq finally messed up enough that we are stuck there for better or worse?
2007-08-10 09:41:02 · 20 answers · asked by pip 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
progress does not mean things are going well. They are two different issues. while progress may mean that one day things will be going well.. it in no way means they aren't messed up now.
2007-08-10 09:48:31 · update #1
It's an interesting question. We have put ourselves in an awkward position... the problems in Iraq today are basically our fault, not just because we invaded them but because we supported Osama bin Laden and the Taliban to fight a proxy war against the Commies, then supported Saddam Hussein, and we continue to fuel the flames of sectarian violence by providing funding and support to both Shiite and Sunni militias all over the middle east (look up Seymour Hersh, New Yorker, Changing Tactics in the Middle East)
We do have a moral obligation to start trying to come up with solutions to these problems, and I'd like to see that happen... but if our involvement is going to be just more of the same, most Iraqis would prefer that we just leave.
2007-08-10 09:53:55 · answer #1 · answered by Aleksandr 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I will answer your question without consideration of any political parties.
If you lived in Iraq and your country was liberated from a tyrant ( Iraqis jumped for joy when this happened), and is now filled with Islamic extremist killing their own men, women, and children, and America is the only entity willing to stay and try to clean up the situation between racial and religious factions.....would you want that safety net removed from under your feet?
So, clearly the answer is regardless what political party takes the Presidency we will still be in Iraq until it has enough stability to assure it's safety and growth.
Hopefully you are not feeling that Ahmadinejad is injecting any good intent for stability for Iraq, or being that Iraq is dominated by shia alike Iran wouldn't they both have already made a deal with each other by now or long before .
2007-08-11 01:42:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is a very peculiar situation like you have got a tiger by the tail-can't hold on for too long nor can you let go.You can't think of withdrawing at this stage because to do so will be disastrous,
all that groundwork done and the billions of dollars spent going down the drain and Iraq returning to its old status ,of course minus Saddam.You have crossed the point of no return.You have to stick it out till stability and
normalcy returns.
2007-08-10 09:54:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We will be in Iraq for a very long time. Get used to it. All the talk by politicians is simply talk! Even the Democrats know this but they would never say so publicly. They don't want to alienate their radical left wing anti-war contingent. Again I say, we will be there 20 years from now. Guaranteed. We're still in Germany, Japan, Korea right?
2007-08-10 11:01:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yep. No matter the rhetoric coming from the Democrat candidates (as they climb over each other to be first to proclaim a complete pull out), we're not leaving Iraq for at least another decade.
Which brings us to the next issue: $10 billion dollars per month. The US cannot sustain this cost for much longer.
Thus the next President, I predict, will be a 1 termer. Because with the looming SS shortfall and the war, there will not be enough money to pay for everything. So whomever it is, will have to raise taxes significantly in order to cover the bloosming deficit and debt.
2007-08-10 09:47:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Our troops will never be withdrawn from Iraq by this president or any other to follow. They may withdraw to protected permanent bases like Guantanamo in Cuba, but they are there to stay.
Iraq is a strategic area. A large US deployment there protects the Arabian oil fields from invasion by the Persians in Iran.
The Iraqi people may be killing each other until Kingdom come, but our troops will remain.
2007-08-11 07:08:50 · answer #6 · answered by Perplexed Bob 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, pip, we are not stuck there for better or worse. We can set a timetable for troop withdrawal of about two years and stick to it. We cannot "win" in Iraq unless the Iraqis form a strong, stable govt, and that just is not happening. If we give them a timetable, perhaps the Iraqis will get their act together. We have already done more than enough to rebuild their country.
2007-08-10 09:49:49 · answer #7 · answered by Shane 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
How many time do I have to say this; There will be no president who does not want to commit political suicide that will keep a significant amount of US troops in Iraq after 2009.
However we will most likely have military bases there till about 2025
2007-08-10 09:57:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Actually, we're not. We're stuck until Iraq can muster up the strength to defend itself. That might take a while, but not forever. We just can't leave Iraq in chaos giving Iran an excuse to take over.
2007-08-10 09:45:37 · answer #9 · answered by magiscoder 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
even the Democrat leaders and the news media have been admitting that Iraq is going well. How on earth can you conclude everything is messed up?
and yes there will be an energy crisis. but only because liberals refuse to let us explore and drill in the US.
2007-08-10 09:45:41 · answer #10 · answered by Avatar_defender_of_the_light 6 · 1⤊ 5⤋