A massively empowered Iran with control over the oil fields in the south of Iraq is one of the BEST case scenarios.
A massive Sunni/Shi'ite civil war ACROSS THE REGION, oil prices throught the roof and terrorists being bred by the thousand in a failed state is also very possible.
2007-08-20 05:24:04 · 32 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
troops home tonight
2007-08-20 05:27:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 6⤋
Most of the politicians that promote 'cut n run' understand the consequences perfectly, they just don't care.
It might be just the thing the US needs to really make a serious committment to the development of alternative fuels.
We won't have a choice. That the price of oil will be high is a certainty but there is also the real possibility that it won't be available at any price.
That is exactly the kind of world the 'cut n run' crowd wants.
Limited travel, local communal living of a smaller population with no industry and all controlled by a central government.
We can all go back to trading in animal skins and beads.
Ask them about how it will affect the lives of the people in the region ie: will anyone get hurt or killed?
They will look you straight in the eye and say, 'no one died when we left Viet Nam.'
An award-winning investigation by the Orange County Register concludes that at least 165,000 people perished in the 're-education' camps alone. The official dead in Cambodia is still being evaluated today. There are still 'crimes against humanity' trials underway but the number is hovering around 1.5 million. It was so bad the Vietnamese had to go there to put an end to it and they killed several hundred thousand in the process. The NY Times never backed off their original estimate of 3 million dead as a direct result of cutting aid to south Viet Nam.
To say that there will be no cost in lives in a perciptious withdrawl from Iraq is just not rational when you consider the shear number of groups with an axe to grind on the rest and have sworn to destroy them.
Incredible
2007-08-20 05:57:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
And that is a change?
It is outta control now and our military is dying because of it.
They just killed their second politician over there, Iran laughs and mocks us as they build an arsenal, gas~ do you buy any, and terrorist move to that region so they can get a chance at our military who are being offed at alarming rate.
Maybe if we stay, the terrorists can deplete our military through death and dismemberment and storm our soil. With a depleted military and zero border security it could become a force we can't handle. Ever consider that? It is a horrid thought and I for one don't want that to happen, but it could so easily doing what we are and aren't doing today.
2007-08-20 05:37:58 · answer #3 · answered by Nurse Winchester 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
what oil is coming out of Iraq today ? has the war helped prices at all? pre bush prices were .89 cents a gallon. for gasoline. If it really really really comes down to it and it might one day -if we dont find an alternative energy solution we might have to dig for oil in alaska - to lower prices here - . Iran we could take out with our intelligence agencies covertly (they are still the best in the world )and let someone else take credit for it- we dont need 245,000 troops over there-
2007-08-20 05:38:05 · answer #4 · answered by rooster 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Too bad Bush and his boys didn't consider these possibilities before going in. I don't know of anyone who's calling for a complete and immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. The most pro-peace presidential candidates seem resigned to our having some troop presence in the Middle East for the foreseeable future. It's only when the questions of how many troops, what there roll will be, and how can we jump start the Iraqi government's cooperative political process are raised that U.S. policy differences appear.
2007-08-20 05:41:35 · answer #5 · answered by socrates 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Looking at some of the posts here, I believe that a lot of people are confusing the mindless chanting of idiotic slogans ("troops home tonight" etc) with actually thinking about anything, so I am guessing most people do NOT get it. They live in a television-derived fantasy land where they think it is possible to go home and hide and lock out the bad guys. Problem is, these bad guys do not live in the same little fantasy and will be not prevented from blowing up more airliners or buildings or cities by our trying to "understand" them. All these no war people know what NOT to do, but not a one of them has a clue as to what we should do. Doing nothing is not one of the options.
2007-08-20 05:42:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Iran is stronger since bush's invasion and Americans are dying everyday in Iraq. More than a million Iraqis are dead as a direct result of the invasion. Oil prices ARE thru the roof. What more is Bush waiting for
2007-08-20 05:31:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
Yep, I think most of us saw the result after Reagan cut and ran from Lebannon, which indirectly resulted in the first WTC attack, the attack on our embassy in Kenya, the attack on the USS Cole, and the second WTC attack.
Because Reagan refused to admit that Islamic terrorism was a threat, while arming and training Osama in Afganistan. Even though the CIA knew that Osama was a religious nut-job at the time, who wouldn't hesitate to kill Americans, just as easily as Soviets.
2007-08-20 05:29:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Then I guess that would force us to start really looking into alternate forms of energy. Which we should be doing anyway. As to the terrorist threat, you have a lesser chance of being killed by a terrorist than by a lightening strike. I'll take my chances if it means no more young people have to die in Iraq...
DR SCHMOO: You sound like the Bush broken record. You fell for it hook, line and sinker, huh? Too bad...
2007-08-20 05:29:16 · answer #9 · answered by slykitty62 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
i think they have no idea of the ramifications. they seem to think that terrorist were created by Iraq. they seem to forget this started long before Iraq and will continue long after Iraq.
regardless on your stance about getting into Iraq, we are there now and all of us have a vested interest in the outcome.denying this fact, does not change the fact.
"The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete." by Wafta Sultan
2007-08-20 05:33:15 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
understanding consequences wasn't something bush cared about when he ordered the troops into Iraq.
2007-08-20 05:43:39 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋