We have invaded their country. We have dissrupted their lives.
Shouldn't we stay and put things right? At least untill we are certain they can handle things on their own?
2007-10-11 14:44:25 · 14 answers · asked by Zezo Zeze Zadfrack 1 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Yup. We're involved now, no matter the reason we started the war.
2007-10-11 14:47:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I also vote stay. We destroyed their army and would not even jpay the poor smucks $40 a month, thus ton of peed off men which are open for outside money to become freedom fighters.
As history and evidence now shos us the deal was trumped up. Instead of dealing with SA, we attack them. Got to give to the army as they knew what to expect and still fought.
If we pull out tit would be toatal choas equal to the 30 Years religious War in Germany which took about 2/3 of the populatioon of Germany and Austria.
They would not have a chance as you have the multitude of Sunni nations vs the Persia Iranian Shiites. Kurds ahve problems with Turkey and 3 million kurds over there. Real Powder Keg.
Unfortunately if we leave all those murderers that Saddam let go just berfore we got there would have a field day. These folks are just now understaning what they coulld become.
If the English, French had had draw country line predicated on people, instead of land, this may have not happened. Then again if Carter had just kept his trap shut. Iran would still be an ally.
2007-10-11 14:55:12 · answer #2 · answered by R J 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not even sure it is possible for us to put things right, since we butted into it in the first place. I don't think we will ever be accepted enough over there for anything we do to make a positive difference. There are too many people who do not trust us, and, quite frankly, who can blame them? If you were in their place, how likely would you trust a foreign country to invade your country and make everything better? I won't deny that Saddam was a monster, but with all the skirmishes between militant groups and the new Iraq government, I would be very curious to know if the rate of death and fear in the country has gone down since Saddam's capture.
2007-10-11 14:51:18 · answer #3 · answered by Kitti 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We did disrupt their lives and country, but now we are trying to install a cookie cutter of our democracy in a country we do not fully understand. While we should continue to have a presence it should be much more limited. Even if we begin to back off and pull troops out now it will take years to get all the equipment and personnel out. We need to continue to help the Iraqi people rebuild the physical structures and roads so that they can have a functional country, but we need to let them decide how they want to be governed. Our system is best for us, it is not necessarily better for the middle east.
2007-10-11 16:49:04 · answer #4 · answered by Kristin 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
without stepping into the experts and cons of the challenge, the most important factor is that an election on an challenge can't happen contained in the US. opposite to a large number of human beings's beliefs, many college textbooks, and diverse media, the US isn't a democracy. it truly is a Republic. purely imagine a minute - "I pledge allegiance to the flag of u . s . and to the REPUBLIC for which..."; "The conflict Hymn of the REPUBLIC" - and so on. a top away vote on an challenge can be a real democracy. yet in a Republic, you vote for the folk who vote on the topics. there is one among those arising this November.
2016-10-09 01:40:11 · answer #5 · answered by riva 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We must stay in Iraq. We owe this to the Iraqi people and the people of the world.
2007-10-11 19:44:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you could put things right, I would say yes, stay. But you can't put things right. And the longer you stay, the harder it will be to put things right. Like in Viet Nam: there were two bad sides, and the USA just complicated things more.
2007-10-11 15:23:04 · answer #7 · answered by Mr Ed 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that we should not be in their country - sure, if we leave, there's going to be more violence, but either way, there's going to be violence in Iraq.
And besides, we should assist them, instead of monitoring their lives - war can be a private thing, among the countries that are in it.
We brought ourselves into the "war" - we can just as easily take ourselves out.
lnjaot
2007-10-11 14:48:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
it's their country and they should be allowed to do as they please. It is not up to us to govern foreign lands when we cannot even control what's happening in our own. It's best to leave and go from there as opposed to getting an inside on oil and a piece of their government
2007-10-11 14:48:16 · answer #9 · answered by jeff k 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They appreciate us there. Al quida is the one hurting innocent people. we are just stopping them. Its never a good thing to have war in your country but if we leave al quida alone then theyll jsut get stronger and bomb the world. -republican kevin
2007-10-11 14:47:31 · answer #10 · answered by Kevin 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋