I remember how much trouble we had, (before the war) finding countries that would even allow our planes to fly through their air-space to retaliate for attacks on American interests.
Do we need bases there, to confront the threats posed by the policies of Iran and Syria?
Isn't the middle east the very place we need to have a great military presence, almost any way we can; and the closer to Iran and Syria the better?
2007-09-17 12:44:52 · 17 answers · asked by big j 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
NEGLECT:---Yes we had these other bases before the war, but we still needed the permission from Turkey to go through their country, and they changed their mind just as we started our invasion. This caused us many problems. We were lucky to have just enough time to develop a new plan of attack.
2007-09-17 14:15:09 · update #1
There are always those people who love to harass our leaders as they try to make us safer. It never seems to matter who the leaders are, they want or need to show that THEY are smarter than our leaders, but nobody ever believes them. However, they just go on deluding themselves about their own extraordinary intellect..
2007-09-17 14:28:27 · update #2
If we had listened to people like you, we never would have invaded Normandy, or Iwo Jima in WW2.; because it would have been " suicidal".
What the hell do you think war is about?
In your mind, is it like playing dodge-ball?
2007-09-18 03:44:19 · update #3
THINK 1st:----The question above is for you.
2007-09-18 03:46:33 · update #4
In WW2, we lost more men in one day than we did throughout the Iraq war.
Is this really a different war, or do we have less courageous people fighting for our country today?
Will all our wars be labled "illegal", in the future?
2007-09-18 03:53:01 · update #5
MTMEGGIDO:---We didn't use A-bombs either.--Does this mean we no longer need A-bombs?
We didn't use submarines. ? ? ?
Flame throwers? ? ?
Hovercraft? ? ?
2007-09-18 03:59:02 · update #6
FERRET:---Are you speaking from experience, from having your head in your butt for an extended period of time?
2007-09-18 04:02:46 · update #7
IDB83:---Does one need to be an "expert" in order to have an opinion?
Were you an "expert" when you voted in the last election?
2007-09-18 04:06:04 · update #8
SEBASTIAN:---Heaven forbid that Islamic extremists should ever come to dislike us.
They might want to fly planes into some of our buildings.
2007-09-18 04:13:52 · update #9
MICHAEL M:---Yes, by all means, we should just leave the mess we created there.
Do you do that at home?
2007-09-18 04:18:00 · update #10
STEVE H:---Both Russia and China tried to spread their influence throughout the world up until they came to realize that comunism doesn't work.
They never needed bases because they were not an ocean away from these other countries.
But the Russians tried to put their missles in Cuba.
2007-09-18 04:25:09 · update #11
They were not dumb enough to think they could put bases in Canada or Mexico.
2007-09-18 04:29:07 · update #12
NEGLECT:---Bases in Iraq would be more effective, because of their proximity to Iran and Syria.
If you don't object to the other bases, why not Iraq?----We could then do without the other bases.
2007-09-18 04:38:13 · update #13
Yes and it would be Vietnam all over again.
2007-09-17 12:47:35 · answer #1 · answered by midnitrondavu 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The argument agaist Iraq isn't geopolitical strategy. It supercedes Game Theory and is a philosophical search for peace. Personally I agree we should pull out, but we should split up the country and give it to neighboring countries first. The east Euprates goes to Iran as an Olive Branch, The West Tigris goes to Syria, Jordan or however, the North goes to Turkey, and the middle between the rivers should go to the U.A.E.
2007-09-17 19:57:17 · answer #2 · answered by imajiknation 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
By your logic, it should be OK for China and Russian to have bases in Canada and Mexico. That is, unless you only believe that the US has a right to have a military presence in over 100 countries around the world... and that 'might makes right'.
2007-09-17 19:52:40 · answer #3 · answered by steve h 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We wouldn't. We already have bases all around Southwest Asia: Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Turkey, etc.
We'd stop being a strategic target for Al Qaeda wannabes in Iraq, though.
2007-09-17 20:21:13 · answer #4 · answered by Negligence 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, we would definitely be giving up a strategic position. Through Iraq, we can influence the political climate of the region, much like we did in Germany after WWII. Most people calling for a complete withdrawal fail to realize that we had a presence in Germany for over 40 years, before making some kind of withdrawal.
2007-09-17 19:48:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
If we don't leave Iraq we are giving up the position of trying to rebuild this country back up to the status it was before all this mess started.
2007-09-17 19:52:09 · answer #6 · answered by Michael M 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
We would just be shutting down the multi BILLION dollar defense contractor industry that initiated the war to begin with.
2007-09-17 19:48:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
we invaded iraq without having bases in iraq. the invasion lasted a couple of weeks. so apparently we don't need bases in iraq.
2007-09-17 19:47:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why would we do that? That's called "taunting" and I'm sure they will hate us even more......the only answer is to get out of the middle east and never look back.
2007-09-17 19:49:30 · answer #9 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm not a foreign policy expert. I'll leave things like this up to experts like you, and all the other experts that will undoubtedly answer this question.
2007-09-17 19:47:58 · answer #10 · answered by Buying is Voting 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. All the invaluable archaeological proofs of the most ancient societies will all be in the hands of the Iraqi.
2007-09-17 19:49:22 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋