English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I'm interested in seeing what people think about the United States' foreign policy when it comes to the Middle East. Spare no one...except for the troops, because it is their choice to serve that gives us the freedom to talk about this in the first place...God Bless the troops and their families for their sacrifice.

2007-10-18 10:38:03 · 12 answers · asked by Phillyfan 3 in Politics & Government Politics

12 answers

There are two key issues to address. As someone else pointed out, without a significant US presence, Iran will likely take control of much of the oil reserves, as Iraq would have done 15 years ago, without the US being there. Until there's a viable alternative to oil, this would destroy the US economy.

The second issue is Israel. Without the US, Iran and Syria will attempt to carry out their goal of destroying Israel. And, as we know, Israel won't go quietly ... this will bring many other players into the mix.

Long term, stable representative governments in Iraq and Afghanistan are the keys to stability of the region. Can we accomplish that? I have no idea, but I think we have to try.

2007-10-19 08:09:31 · answer #1 · answered by jdkilp 7 · 1 0

We view ourselves as policing the world and helping to keep order. Many people in the Middle East see the United States as attempting to take away their sovereignty.
We should have a presence in the Middle East but without bullying any other countries. What we need to recognize is that the Neo-con plan in the region is terrible but that doesn't mean that we should take the polar opposite.

2007-10-18 21:00:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Stay in Iraq until they can run the place themselves.

Then allllllll out.

Leave Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Germany, Japan, Spain, Italy, Diego Garcia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, Belgium, Phillipines, Persian Gulf, Suez, Turkey, Balkans, et al.

There is no resolve in the American population for pre-emptive action or foreign intervention. The political horizon has no candidates that will have the courage to stick his neck out. Not one of them will have the guts to deploy troops.
The American people are spoiled and do not have the stomach for any combat that lasts more than a week.
The role of World Policeman is considered immoral.

Time to come home.
Build Fortress America. End destructive foreign aid.
Whitdraw from the UN. Send the UN HQ to Brussels.
Disban the obsolete NATO.
Declare US companies doing business over seas as on their own.
End foreign oil dependency.
SEAL the borders.
Close embassies in adversarial nations (Indonesia).
Cease accepting political refugees that import their revolutions.
Build SDI.
Cut the Military.
End Student Visas.

They want to be left alone? Leave them alone. Alllll ALONE.

No more intervention, at all.

2007-10-18 10:57:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

We need some kind of presence in the middle east because of Iran but Iraq was a poor choice and for all the wrong reasons. If we felt we needed troops in that region, after being booted out of Saudi Arabia, we should have tried to negotiate with Jordan for rights to establish a base. Now we've sapped our military's strength and we're in poor position to defend whatever gains we might have made.

2007-10-18 11:03:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Goofy people have been misled to believe that Bush got the US into Iraq "for the oil" as they cannot believe that 3000 people died in NYC and it could happen again. Maybe like Sean Penn and Dan Rather Biased thay feel that Saddam was just misunderstood...all they need was a free trip, nice accomodations and some dancing girls...to forget Saddam gave $10,000 to homicide bomber's families then $20,000...besides killing and torturing his own people and harboring bad people (like Dan Rather) and terrorists in training.

Don't they realize that SABOTAGE has been known from day minus 1000 to prevent any serious exploitation for oil? Or is Bush so hated bec. he refuses to place the 100,000 landmines so needed on the Iraq borders AND provide adequate "death from above" to keep at least 12 Toyotas full of terrorists smoking at the same time 24/7?

2007-10-18 10:56:00 · answer #5 · answered by uncle_derk 3 · 1 1

No kidding. Even those that do not die or get hurt still sacrifice a lot when they serve in the military.
I say we stay, we have a mess that is not going to get better and we need permenant representation in the middle east with a peace loving nation like Iraq will become.

2007-10-18 10:42:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

ANSWERED BY peacenegotiator:

In 1990-91, I was the government-to-government conflict negotiator (actually my company) that secured Saddam's withdrawal from Kuwait. This happened during a time when the white House kept continually saying that all they wanted was to get Saddam out of Kuwait. Well, I achieved this, yet it was the Bush administration that had turned down this request and NOT Saddam! So, some of the Bush lies begin during the first Iraq War. President Bush Junior's administration is run by the same people that were in President Bush Senior's administration, same people! My firm had sent out over 800 press releases as to what we had done and not one media source, except CNN, wrote back.

It is a wonder and amazement that this presidential administration has continued for so long. The American people don't fully realize that this war is illegal, murderous, and a violation of US and UN laws. Yet, no prosecution has come forward to this date!

If our government knew that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, and they did know that Saddam did not, and they fabricated evidence that he did, our President and people in his administration are guilty of high crimes and treason. An estimated 1.8 million innocent Iraqis died, because of this lie. How do we Americans truly justify 1.8 million deaths?

In the agreement that my firm had secured Saddam had agreed to every publicly stated term of the US government. So, he agreed (a) to the withdrawal and (b) to terms of regional peace. We did not have to wage this war and Saddam had no WMD. Additionally, Iraq DID NOT violate any UN resolution! Any judgment saying that Iraq had violated a UN Resolution was completely trumped up!

So, why no indictments! What value would you place on 1.8 million Hebrew lives? We, my family, are from that region and are paternal Hebrews. Hitler killed over six million Jews. Bush killed 1.8 million!

How did Hitler get away with his crime? Weren't the Germans aware of what Hitler was doing and how could they allow such things to happen!???

Similarly, weren't the Americans aware of what was going on and how can the Americans permit such to happen!???

Yours,

Max,
peacenegotiator,
a paternal Hebrew

Yes, there is a solution where we can get out of Iraq and negotiate a settlement to get out of Afghanistan, but the Bush administration DOES NOT want to tell the American people AND they continually lie about the Iraq War. Yes, there is a correct and proper solution that would satisfy all of our needs and demands. The Bush administration could solve the Iraq War, but somehow they REFUSE!!!

Get hep, people. Get hep!

.

2007-10-18 12:04:57 · answer #7 · answered by peacenegotiator 3 · 0 1

maximum folk of palestinian human beings additionally favour a 2-state answer the place Israel returns to its 1967 borders. even though, additionally they comprehend that that's adversarial via Israel and its allies. it relatively is plenty much less confusing to desire peace, once you are the only doing lots of the suffering. presently, Israel would not desire peace and is not any longer able the place it may call for peace at that cost. see you later as Israel maintains to be the Goliath in this david and goliath tale, there is not any reason it may could.

2016-12-18 11:11:50 · answer #8 · answered by cosner 4 · 0 0

It's kind of a double whammy.. our economy is based on oil ( even if we don't import "much" from the middle east, it still impacts price ) and it's where our enemies are. We're kind of stuck there..

2007-10-18 10:45:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Yes, we have to stay!!

Especially since the Democrats keep encouraging the Insurgents & the Terrorists.

The more that the Democrats act like Cowards, the more Americans have to be Brave.

2007-10-18 10:46:18 · answer #10 · answered by wolf 6 · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers