2007-09-11 02:09:10 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Having read the responses thus far, it's pretty clear that people have made up their minds without having paid any amount of attention to the overwhelming facts that have lead us to this point. Pitty, because they all vote.
Just over two weeks ago, Iran announced that it is ready to take over the void ("vacuum") left in Iraqi leadership when the U.S. pulls out. Iran has mismanaged their oil supply to the point that while sitting atop the world's third largest reserve, they find it necessary to IMPORT rather than export.
As much as a lot of people hated Reagan, you have to admit that his advisors made it clear to him that the world's economy runs on oil. This explains why he reflagged all of those foreign oil tankers passing through the region and provided them with armed escort (read: U.S. Navy) for safe passage.
Iran is not at all friendly towards the west and hates the U.S. with a passion -- with just cause (Eisenhower/Nixon's CIA overthrow back in the 1950s to install the Shaw to the Peacock throan).
Until you can convince the U.N. to (without corruption) do the job they should have been doing all along (preDesert Storm thru to present), someone (ANYONE!) needs to protect the world's economy from a country that exports terrorism and is admittedly ready to "fill the vauum."
2007-09-11 02:32:14 · answer #1 · answered by Doc 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you think the US needed to be in Iraq in the first place...then you shouldn't think the US should walk away now.
2007-09-11 02:16:33 · answer #2 · answered by gcbtrading 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The US never needed to be in Iraq. Nobody "needs" to be an imperialist.
2007-09-11 02:15:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
We do as long as there is civil unrest and surrounding countries threaten to come in and undermine the existence of freedom and prosperity.
2007-09-11 02:20:14 · answer #4 · answered by Barney 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
It would be a dishonor to all those that gave their lives for this mission to leave without completing the mission
2007-09-11 02:24:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course not, they did not need to be there in the first place.
2007-09-11 02:15:48 · answer #6 · answered by smedrik 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
UN peace keepers are needed. US troops aggravate the situation.
2007-09-11 02:15:42 · answer #7 · answered by Washington Irving 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
no but then what will happen to the oil they are stealing and not putting on the market which created high gas prices?
2007-09-11 02:15:29 · answer #8 · answered by Edge Caliber 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
yes...
are the terrorist still flocking there from Iran and Syria?...yes
Like rats to cheese in a trap.
2007-09-11 02:15:21 · answer #9 · answered by King 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
oh' yes why not untill each and every soldier death
like vietnam
2007-09-11 02:17:38 · answer #10 · answered by hammad k 1 · 0⤊ 3⤋