Or should we cut and run, and let Ahmadinejad move in and take over?
2007-09-26 22:40:47 · 19 answers · asked by Moody Red 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Thanks to everyone. A lot of well thought out answers. I wish I could choose more than one!
2007-09-28 00:38:06 · update #1
Iraq is the new Germany. We are going to pretty much have a permanent presence there. Like we did to keep the soviets at bay. I know most will get ticked off by this answer but its the truth. Now, even the dems who have a lot of monetary interest in the companies present there now don't want us out because they stand to lose a lot financially. And yes, if we cut and run, Iran will own Iraq.
Much like Germany, they will eventually stand on their own and squash the lawlessness. It's at that point we need to let them do it their way.
2007-09-26 23:07:36 · answer #1 · answered by The prophet of DOOM 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Wow, where do I start with this rhetorical mess?
First faulty assumption: Iraq will ever "stand on its own."
Second faulty assumption: our presence will contribute to Iraq "standing on its own," rather than interfere with its ability to do so.
Third faulty assumption: Ahmadinejad has the ability to "take over" after we've left.
But your biggest rhetorical sin is something called "the fallacy of many questions." The problem with your question as you've stated it is that it represents a dishonest range of choices, and the answerer must accept that leaving Iraq also means "cutting and running" and that Iran will move into Iraq in our wake.
But I'll answer your dishonest question anyway: we should leave Iraq. Iraq is nothing but an amalgam of various territories of former provinces of the Ottoman Empire that the British attempted to make into a single country. The problem is that the people of Iraq have little interest in living alongside one another, and for at least one group (Kurds) a strong interest in asserting independence. No amount of military force can make people love one another, or have a sense of national identity if it's not there to begin with.
2007-09-27 05:53:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
No, that shouldn't be the only criteria. What if there's more to it than Ahmadinejad who may very well get voted out in two more years. What if we can't get anymore loans to pay for it? There has been only one sensible answer so far and that's Adam B's.
2007-09-27 08:36:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Iraq stood on its own just fine before the US invaded. It was a sovereign nation with little internal strife, and it was no threat to the US. The instability, chaos and civil war were set off by a foreign, occupying force.
The alternative and the consequence you predict are unrealistic and nothing more than Republican scare tactics.
Ahmadinejad is not even the real ruler of Iran, but apparently he's a great bogeyman.
There are solutions between cut and run and stay the course. Iran is going to play a part in Iraqi politics no matter what. In fact, it already rules a piece of Iraq and the Al Maliki government plays both sides. The alternatives to staying indefinitely are complex, but US troops cannot occupy this Arab land for much longer.
2007-09-27 06:02:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
We should stay for as long as it takes the French to get the rest of the world into a war with Iran. After that, Iraqs problems will almoost completely disappear.
2007-09-27 05:45:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think the military should throw out CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBC, and NBC so they can do their job. They have to be so politically correct that it is killing our soldiers. It's hard to fight a war when the enemy hides in homes and doesn't wear a uniform. Then you have the left wing Liberal media screaming that our soldiers are killers. This has to stop. Then we will see more progress in Iraq and the military can get the job done and come home.
2007-09-27 11:10:08 · answer #6 · answered by Robert J 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think we have to stay not only for the reasons you have stated here but as a precaution against future problems in the area. we may have to return to the region better to have a standing base of operations like we do in South Korea, Germany and Japan
2007-09-27 16:28:57 · answer #7 · answered by beanerjr 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Most definitely!
If we do, we can take credit for liberating 50 million people from the yolk of tyranny.
If we don't, the U.S.A. will NEVER again be trusted to stand up for what they claim they believe.
The entire WORLD will suffer if we don't.
2007-09-27 10:20:18 · answer #8 · answered by Philip H 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Stay until we win.
We are and the lefts dirty little secret they do not tell their base is they voted to build the biggest embassy in the world.
It is a country with in a country so we stay and we let our men and women fight to win and get the DC beltway boys and girls out of the way to win.
2007-09-27 08:28:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
We've come this far; to leave would disgrace the memory of the men and women who have paid for the time past with their lives. How would we ever get any nation to believe in us again? We would never field a volunteer Army ever again.
AhmaniswhyIcamehere would show us to be cowards and you would see IEDs everywhere here. The lion would have no teeth!
2007-09-27 07:07:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋