Oh ,ho ho , I believe they certainly do . But they acknowledge that .
I'm not talking about forcing anything on them , instead I'm talking about them honoring their debts .
Who believes Iraq owes us a huge debt ?
2007-09-13 11:26:05 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Commandercody - I normally don't respond to such outrageous claims but in the interest that anyone ill-informed may read and believe your answer I will note that Iraq's own record-keeping indicates that roughly 100.000 civilians have been killed and almost every one of them is from insurgent bombings . Therefore you have a lot of learning to do . And stop believing whoever told you that a million have been killed by us . That's ridiculous and most of the crazy left-wing websites don't even go that far .
2007-09-13 12:34:38 · update #1
I guess no-one understands why we are actually in Iraq.
All the answers so far only look at the past 4.5 years and on that premise, yes they owe us.
But....the real reason we are in Iraq for the last 4.5 years, being the repeated violations from 1991, well then, yes...they do owe us.
But, we will never demand they pay those debts...on the short term outlook, a payment of those debts is a good thing...but looking further out...No...their friendship in that area of the world will be more than enough repayment.
2007-09-14 08:50:49 · answer #1 · answered by Nibbles 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
fairly, the Republicans say "No Withdrawal" and the Democrats say "not extra Troops". i think of John McCain is suited. Congress could the two supply the present plan a guess to artwork, or "un-declare" war. No partial shrink which could be surpassed if the troops in Iraq mandatory much extra again rescue them. The Democrats could think of a at the same time as and collect extra consensus (with them and Reuplicans) for a complete withdrawal. supply up the war by no longer approving investment and set a troop shrink of 0 in six months. Even then Bush could stall and save attempting to bypass extra money, with one week to bypass he could be impeached for recklessly endangering the troops. yet some would say Congress had achieved that by no longer balloting extra money. Democrats can no longer stress the drastic plan in the event that they have not got sixty seven+ Senate votes for it. "not extra Troops" places us back to the plan in the previous this one. Biden's plan of splitting Iraq into 3 will happen in a messy way if we bypass away. Controlling the borders will take extra troops and would possibly no longer artwork if maximum combating is inner communities. speaking to Iran and Syria means giving them something in substitute, and additionally would possibly no longer artwork if maximum combating is inner communities. the persons gets a guess to vote in 2008, in the event that they fairly need withdrawal, they are going to vote for Hillary or Obama in no way recommendations any doubts they'd have approximately them. a minimum of they are going to subject the order to withdraw. meanwhile, wish this plan is the ultimate.
2016-10-04 12:51:02 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, that all depends Earnest. If we stay until things stabilize, (which means letting them have MORE FREE ELECTIONS so they can CHOOSE THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT-and hopefully this one will be better than the current one is), then yes. I don't think the Iraqis expected peace overnight-and I think they will be grateful when all is said and done.
But, if we leave their country in chaos--then no. You can't go charging in with promises of a better life and decide 1/2 way through the job, it's just not worth it. I'd be bitter too!
2007-09-13 12:32:57 · answer #3 · answered by Cherie 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Earnest you're getting dumber by the day.
Look at Iraq now. Everyone's unemployed. No Electricity. No plumbing. No water. People are dieing at a rate equal or greater to the Saddam days.
They dont owe us shite.
2007-09-13 11:38:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
A huge debt for what? Flattening their country? Creating a massive humanitarian crisis? The creation of an incompetent puppet government?
"Not talking about forcing anything on them"...Are you delusional? That's what the last four years in Iraq have been all about!
2007-09-13 11:35:39 · answer #5 · answered by gilliegrrrl 6 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Um... what? How does that one go, exactly? I don't follow.
WE bombed the stain out of the country; WE killed hundreds of thousands of civilians; WE racked the country's infrastructure...
THEY owe US? Sorry, buddy, it's the other way around.
2007-09-13 11:38:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
There are more terrorism attacks in Iraq now, than before we started sending troops there. The way I see it, we owe it to Iraq to repair some of the damage we've done to their country.
2007-09-13 11:33:04 · answer #7 · answered by katydid 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Like the death of a million of its civilians and destructiion of their infrastructure and economy? Best to pray that debt never gets settled.
2007-09-13 12:18:21 · answer #8 · answered by commandercody70 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Iraq will pay us back for what we're doing for them when France pays us back for liberating them from the Nazis. In other words.....don't hold your breath!
2007-09-13 11:41:57 · answer #9 · answered by ? 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Giving other people a chance at freedom and a democracy is not about being paid back and if you think that is why we did it then you are a lost cause. You want more money STOP foreign aide at $480 Billion a year!
2007-09-13 11:33:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋