Nearly all of congress does. They voted for the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 under Bill Clinton.
2007-09-13 16:05:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
We should not have gone in the first place... however, we can not just withdraw now. We broke it and now we have to pay for it... if we leave Iraq then we will destabilize the entire Middle East; there will be no check on Iran and Syria, the few allies that we have in that region will be vulnerable to the pressure of those nations... Iraq will fall into a massive ethnic and tribal war and the shared borders will be inundated with refugees... If you think the world is pissed off at us for invading Iraq the hatred will get worse if we live. American influence in foreign matters will be non-existent.
We should have never gone... this was a stupid mess that this administration led us to but we can't just leave. We should also have realistic solutions (which we don't have with this president and his staff); we should seriously consider breaking up Iraq into several regions with seperate governments.
This is different from Vietnam... We really only lost face there but a region as essential to the world economy is a different story. This could cripple Western economies with a destabilization of a important area with a important resource.
2007-09-13 23:16:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by cattledog 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
well i think we were right to go there but not for the reasons we were told the people there were abused by a tyrant and murder was common done by the sadams.also i belive that saddam was truely a danger to the stablity of the entire reigon ,but we have made mistakes sense then the people there are not ready to govern themselfs and there is a serious problem with terriost sadam controled with a iron fist and that may be what it takes in the short term.it will takke years for the country to become stablized and many lives ,it takes time to change and a commitment.its easy to say we shouldnt be there im anti war but i dont belive as a moral nation we can sit back and watch what goes on,also the stability of the region is a concern to our nation lets be honest till we become independent for ourenergy needs we need their oil of the middle east became controled by radicals then we could have problems
2007-09-13 23:14:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
You will hear a number of reasons from people responding to your question that we went into Iraq to remove the WMDs, to fight terrorism, to free the Iraqi people, to remove Saddam, to protect American interests and to get Iraqi oil. Bottom line America went to Iraq to increase our future access to mideast oil. Saddam was a threat to some of his neighbors. Fear of Saddam regime taking over another country's property that had oil wealth (ask Kuwait) and using Iraqi's oil wealth to obtain more sophiscated weapons (and WMDs) were American reasons for going into Iraq unilaterally. America wants an American-friendly Iraqi government to have long and strong relations with so American companies can drill for gas and oil there as well as have first call to existing oil and gas assets ahead of China, India or Russia. Whew! With all this said, we can't leave Iraq yet. Without a strong American military presence in Iraq at least for another 5 years, Iraq as a country would falter. Iraq would divide along three lines Kurds, Sunni, and Shia. The Kurds would look to re-establish themselves with Syria (Syria does not want this). Al Qaeda in Iraq could establish a thriving operation in which they plan and launch global attacks. However, worst and foremost is that Sunni and Shia clashes would ignite into a full blown civil war. The Middle East region has ~300 million muslims of which ~63% are Sunni and ~37% are Shia. If secretarian feuds in Iraqi start spreading to other muslim countries is the Middle East only, oil and gas prices are going to skyrocket!
2007-09-14 00:02:41
·
answer #4
·
answered by GL Supreme 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
approximately 5% of the fighing in Iraq is spent fighting "foreign fighters". that is the number you can consider a terrorist. Some will even say it is less than that. This of course is a huge indication that we are NOT fighting terrorists in Iraq. At least NO where near the extent that many Americans think we are after buying the "fight them there" rehtoric. We should NOT be there.
2007-09-13 23:07:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by truth seeker 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Now there it is a moral imperative that we stay to stabilize the country.
We owe them that. If we leave there will be a power vacuum and our allies there will be the first targets of the forces that want to destabilize the region.
Not to mention the fact that we are successfully drawing their fire to the region instead of say here.
Make no mistake, we are in a shooting war with Al Queda and they are sworn to fight to the death.
The first site is general.
The second is specific to the nature of jihad.
2007-09-14 07:41:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by FOA 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
who knows if anyone thinks we "should" be in Iraq, but we can't just leave. what is so confusing about that? what's the other alternative, really?
we've heard the argument a million times we should have never gone in there, fine. but now we are there and if we pull out, what are the democrats thinking will happen? i mean, really. i guess i should pose that as my own question, but i dont really want to hear the spin on their answers. now that i think about it, they probably wouldnt give a straight answer...
2007-09-13 23:10:39
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Wrong!
The US has all the guarantees of the Iraqis Oil before and after.. It's a lot more than that the "Naked Whore" of the middleast couldnt fend for herself so she duped US to protect her... here is a link that will shed some interesting light, please be patient till the end of the article as the author has a tendency to elaborate the findings at the end...
2007-09-13 23:08:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by Wally H 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
I don't know what changed for you that you arrived at this conclusion, but I disagree that we are in Iraq for oil. There is just not any proof of this claim.
I support our Separation of Powers and we elect Congress and the President to make these decisions. It's not a cop-out, it's why they make the big bucks. It's their job and I want them to do it.
2007-09-13 23:05:20
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 7
·
4⤊
2⤋
Al Qaeda believes that this is their primary front against America. I believe that to lure your enemy into a foreign country in order to carry the fight to him is a lot better than sitting back in a defensive posture waiting for them to strike your homeland.
2007-09-13 23:12:31
·
answer #10
·
answered by og0925go 4
·
1⤊
1⤋