Can you explain why the following statement is true?

Question

"The insurgents who threaten Iraq's future are a danger to U.S. national security."

Is our national security now totally dependent upon whether or not Iraq becomes a stable democracy?

Because if it is... buy your freaking burkhas now. That country will NEVER be stable.

First answerer: In other words, you have no idea either. Thanks.

Answer 1

Funny that Gen Petraeus said he didn't know if it makes America safer. Seems Bush fully backs the viewpoint of the General, except when he doesn't like it.

Answer 2

"That country(Iraq) will never be stable"

With that statement alone, this question becomes invalid because the logic behind the question was rooted in your previous statements. And a person's answer had to be rooted behind your statements, yet, for this statement, you provide no sound logic or proof.

Iraq will be stable some day.

And yes, our national security is at stake, considering Al Qaeda is constantly in Iraq. And Osama considers it the major front against the west.

Answer 3

It is a false statement. It seems Bush as many Americans believe that Al Qaeda is a band of brothers that move in and out of Iraq attacking here and there. Al Qaeda is everywhere IE: Spain, Great Britain, Germany, Egypt, Italy, France, Algeria and so on ...
Al Qaeda is NOT a group its an organization, it has ramifications around the world ... Iraq war itself will NOT put an end to Al qaeda ... it needs to be tackled by every single nation around the world that calls itself a democracy ... including and especially Arab Muslim nations.
US national security is not safer from insurgents as it is from US fanatics who are tired of these abuse of power.
I still believe to this day that Saddam would have been better as an ally as oppose to being an enemy. I do not agree with his methods yet in the present political turmoil in the Middle East he could have been a great source of persuasion in the region ... especially against its enemy #1 ... Iran.

Answer 4

It is NOT true. The insurgents in Iraq are basically Iraqi citizens that want the U.S. out of Iraq. They are not a danger to U.S. national security. If anything they are a danger to the troops that Bush refuses to remove.

Answer 5

real. each and each component interior the expression (2)(4(6)(8) etc. is two times the dimensions of the climate in a factorial (a million)(2)(3)(4) etc. The style of factors is advantageous, so we've ok cases 2 cases the factorial, or (2k)(k1).

Answer 6

It means what it says it means -

Our security is dependent on our continued success in Iraq.

Edit in response to email:

I can read just fine thank you.

Just look at it this way---If say, ten miles away there was a large city, where hundreds of gang members were committing Murder and other felonies of theft and violence, and it was affecting not only the large city, but the surrounding communities, including yours, and so, something had to be done, so they send in a task force along with National Guard members to quell the violence and get it under control to try and maintain stability in the region, and to secure a security force in the city for future protection of their citizens and for the surrounding communites---

Which would you rather do--Stay and make sure the task of securing the city, and for your own good and safety? ... Or ... Would you say what the heck, let's just let them go, not caring one way or the other whether or not security, and peace are acheived, possibly leading to even worse violence in the future?

Think about it...

Answer 7

Can't explain it. It would make more sense if he said the Al Qaeda in Iraq is a danger to the US, though even that requires a stretch.

Answer 8

If it becomes stable then the Democrat Party has a HUGE problem on their hands.

Answer 9

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1117/p09s02-coop.html

Answer 10

None of those statements are true. It needs to be said to give meaning to a meaningless war. Those of us who re stupid enough to believe it would agree that the statements are true.