a pull out now canidate wins the white house and pulls the troops
simple physics taught us every action has an equal and opposite re-action,
so when our forces do leave ,in this situation, in your honest opinion who fills that space in iraq?
2007-11-27 07:01:28 · 14 answers · asked by djominous20 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
2 real answers out of 5 so far wow sad how ppl cant sovle issues just push blame
2007-11-27 07:10:10 · update #1
if i wanted bashing bush answers i would of made a question in that direction , i asked a simple question i want opinion not a bunch of hot air
2007-11-27 07:16:36 · update #2
Realistically, iran will come in from the north and the shite sects will get more help in their fight against the sunnis. than the Saudis and syria will probably step in to help the sunnis, The Kurds will be stuck in the middle of all this mess, that is unless the turks decide to use the chaos to settle their issues with the Kurds.
I'm not to optoimistic on the good ness of man so that is what I see.
2007-11-27 07:37:40 · answer #1 · answered by cutiessailor 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Shiri'a Law fills the gap
It took 3 days in Basra from the time the Brits pulled out to the Killing of Women for not wearing a Hajib.
2007-11-27 15:33:54 · answer #2 · answered by whirling W dervish 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
physics don't apply to this in that way.. the physics would be more along the lines of "would their leaving raise the level of the ground by reducing the mass on top of it" or something silly like that.
What you are asking is more of a sociological issue.. and therefor physics don't apply (in the sociological sense anyway)
our "action" could cause no reaction, a mild reaction, or a massive reaction (for better or worse) and would be influenced by infinitely more sources than just their pulling out. In other words... it is virtually impossible to predict with certainty, but guesses.. using sociology... could be made with a moderate amount of success... and I would say that Iraq would more or less return to the state it was before we came in (after some turmoil). Which would be of no threat to us.
2007-11-27 15:18:57 · answer #3 · answered by pip 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You realize after yesterday your question has no merit.
Bush signed a friendship accord not a treaty(congress would have to approve a treaty) with Iraq to leave our troops there permanently. We are going to have bases and around 50k troops until they tell us to leave....
We picked sides, We picked the side of the Shia. We are there to protect them and make sure that the Sunni do not up rise.
One of the points of doing this is that American investment ( oil companies) get priority's when it comes to Oil and rebuilding Iraq...
If there was any doubt that the invasion of Iraq was about oil there is no arguments now!
2007-11-27 15:27:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Iran
2007-11-27 15:08:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
What space? The Shia-Sunni civil war that's been waged for the last three years will continue.
You don't seriously buy the "stable" Iraq line that Bush has been using now for the last four years do you? If you do, then I have a large "Mission Accomplished" banner you can buy.
2007-11-27 15:12:49 · answer #6 · answered by Antioch 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Pulling out "all" the troops "now" is not physically possible (or advisable), but if they are pulled out as quickly as is reasonable then there is really no way to know what would happen...most likely lots of violence that will occur no matter how long we wait and which would not occur at all if we never invaded...
2007-11-27 15:13:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Iran.
2007-11-27 15:13:55 · answer #8 · answered by Lisa M 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Whether we leave in one year or 50, the difference is whether our troops will be defending themselves in a hostile country or be available to defend us.
2007-11-27 15:16:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The Iraqi government gets off its azz and fixes itself.
2007-11-27 15:06:29 · answer #10 · answered by MadLibs 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋