The number of refugees continues to grow so there is no signs of improvement in everyday living there.
After this next President passing the responsibility to the next person in 2013 is it time to maybe call it quits?
Ahfganistan has not stabalized either and Taliban just retake the city once military presence leaves.
2007-10-05 00:59:30 · 12 answers · asked by Edge Caliber 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
short answer: 0.
2007-10-05 01:28:11 · answer #1 · answered by mstrywmn 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
If Obama decried the monetary toll of the Iraq conflict then why did he vote to proceed the investment for it each and anytime as a US Senator ? If Obama is so worried approximately financial accountability why did he vote for ninety 8% of the tax and spending will strengthen placed earlier him as a State and US Senator ? Why have been the Obama's in basic terms approximately compelled out of business as reported contained in the Chicago sunlight circumstances ? And have been basically stored by means of Michelle getting a gravy activity at a Chicago scientific institution after her then US Senator husband shoveled thousands and thousands in earmarks to that very scientific institution ?
2017-01-03 04:10:07 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Zero, it was an unmitigated mistake and a massive quagmire. The war on terrorism should instead focus on terrorists instead of profiteering and oil and shift the resources to Pakistan and Afghanistan where we KNOW the true terrorists are. You can create terrorists any time you invade and occupy another country, especially when you dismantle the government, all of which we did in a arrogant and completely incompetent manner.
2007-10-05 01:58:46 · answer #3 · answered by HP 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Iraq is the worst peace keeper nation ranked at #121 for keeping the peace. No wonder people want to flee that country. I don't live in Iraq, but when the wars are over and gov't has more compassion for it's people then it may stabilize.
2007-10-05 01:05:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
And the ironic thing is that we are never going to see a political solution in Iraq until the US. ( the occupiers ) , go home. Let the Iraqis sort this out themselves. We are not helping.
2007-10-05 01:32:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think that, to many of its supporters, the occupation of Iraq is ultimately nothing more than a symbol of American military power. I think they would consent to let the US throw its last dime down that rathole, rather than give up such a symbol.
Just as thoughtless, irresponsible people typically bankrupt themselves for the sake of social prestige by acquiring possessions they can't actually afford.
The flawed strategy and needless deaths mean nothing to them. They just want to see American forces shooting things up on TV.
I don't think support for the war is rooted in reality.
2007-10-05 01:15:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Nothing you claim is accurate.
I favor winning the war against terrorists. If it were up to me, we would stay until the job is done. The US has maintained a military force in Germany since 1945, or 62 years.
If you want to do something useful, call for the return of those troops. Obviously they are not needed.
2007-10-05 01:25:33 · answer #7 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Stablize it. As long as it takes, as long as the government and military is willing to help.
2007-10-05 01:54:07 · answer #8 · answered by White Star 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
when almost 1/2 of its population have immigrated to the usa and the other half to other european country then it will be easier to stabilize.
2007-10-05 01:11:43 · answer #9 · answered by livinhapi 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your Avatar is quite poinyant, isn't that a surrender monkey?
We should stay in Iraq. We ousted the the monster in charge, we won the war!.......the war is over, your side lost. get over it.
2007-10-05 01:56:20 · answer #10 · answered by battle-ax 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋