2007-10-15 02:22:24 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Civil War
2007-10-15 07:30:42 · answer #1 · answered by Peiper 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iraq would be invaded and would fall to Iran. Iran and Iraq for those who lie to themselvees that nothing is happening has been trying to do this for nearly 20 years now. Al Queda would probably not be able to get their hands on the country but it is well known that Iran is even capable of making thier own weapons. The war in Iraq can be done with if Iran would subsist in suppling resistence forces with weapons/troops. You can't trust the media on this since the producers have their own biased. This problems are a result of not finishing what was started doing the gulf war. I hope that I don't har anyone ranting about no blood for oil and bush sucks stuff. I do not like real war but I dislike watching people suffer in other countries from evil goverment or invading armies even more.
2007-10-15 09:38:36 · answer #2 · answered by RAH-66 Comanche: Aerial Reaper 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Iraq would spiral much deeper into a civil war, the Iraqi minorities would be wiped out, it would be long and bloody, many people would be killed. Toture and violence would be everywhere. Iraq would no longer be a friend of the United States. You can say that the same thing is happening now, and say that Iraq will never be a friend to the United States. I think someday Iraq will be a great friend and a great ally, and if it takes 5 or 50 years, my brothers and sisters and I will continue to fight the good fight.
2007-10-15 09:33:22 · answer #3 · answered by armyparalegal 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If they left today or two years from today, the action would be the same . A Civil War and Iraq becomes an Islamic republic.
2007-10-15 09:37:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The religious nut-bags would take it back over and we would have another Open Terrorist Stronghold, denouncing the west and plotting with Iran to get the bomb.
Get ready folks. It's going to happen. You cannot negotiate with a rabid dog. If elected, that's what the Dems are going to attempt. Within 2 years you will have a nuclear attack on the USA, probably sponsored by Iran, since they are closest to the tech.
Scaling back in Iraq isn't going to help the situation. "Live and Let Live" means NOTHING to these people. Christianity and the Western world must convert or DIE, by their own propaganda statements.
We have 2 choices; eliminate the problem entirely, or start learning to speak various dialects of Arabic. Take your pick. For negotiating certainly is NOT an option.
2007-10-15 09:31:42 · answer #5 · answered by Quietman40 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Some Iraqis would kill other Iraqis, just like now.
Our puppet govt there would be violently overthrown, replaced by a govt opposed to the US interests, because of anger about all the Iraqis killed by the US invaision.
2007-10-15 09:29:31 · answer #6 · answered by sudonym x 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
there would be a civil war..for several years.... and then maybe all the militants would be left dead, then peace for a while..
Kourt Kourt
did you know that iraq had nothing to do with 9/11
It was Osama in Afghanistan..... dont ask me why we are in iraq...... we invaded the wrong country....
I have to add
Why are you cons so invested in the idea we did the right thing and we need to stay and kill some more..... i see the blood dripping from you fangs,,, what is up with such animosity?
2007-10-15 09:29:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
The desires of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists to further the establishment of the caliphate would be eased. Iran would take control and all of our troops who have sacrificed their lives to fight to keep the West safe from the spread of radical Islam would be in vain. Their now wasted blood will be on the hands of the “progressive” Left.
Ahmadinejad: Iran can help fill power vacuum in Iraq
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boldly declared Tuesday that US political influence in Iraq is "collapsing rapidly" and that Teheran is ready to help fill any power vacuum.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1188197179541
The enemy principally includes al-Qaeda, Iran, and Syria in the Iraqi theater. For al-Qaeda, as can be clearly seen by their own public communications as well as in captured internal communications, Iraq is their own central front in their war against the Jews and Crusaders, declared long ago in 1998. It doesn't matter what we think it is or what anyone thinks of how or why we went there. And it must also be acknowledged that anywhere we had gone in lieu of Iraq would have thus been their central front.
This is what the opposition themselves have said in very clear language.
So what is al-Qaeda's will? The death of Jews and Crusaders on the path to the re-establishment of the greater regional caliphate, of which Iraq is a part. By accepting defeat in Iraq, we largely disengage and move on from the one front where we are engaging (and killing) the al-Qaeda enemy in combat. (Some will say Afghanistan, too. But that is an illusion, as killing hundreds of Taliban cannon fodder conscripts hurled over the Pakistani border is not engaging and killing al-Qaeda. Not by a long shot.) And if the enemy is disengaged by us in Iraq, in short order AL-QAEDA WILL SHIFT RESOURCES TO TIP THE NEXT DOMINO FOR THE CALIPHATE.
….
This is WHY they were drawn to Iraq in the first place.
2007-10-15 09:28:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 3⤋
Iraq would have to take responsibility for keeping tribal hate and fanatics under control. Gee, imagine that. A country actually running it's OWN affairs.
2007-10-15 09:32:47 · answer #9 · answered by fiddlesticks9 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Then the war would come to the United States at our very borders.
2007-10-15 09:47:47 · answer #10 · answered by knight 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋