its going on now and as soon as we leave it will get worse
2007-12-14 11:27:48
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
<2 years
2007-12-14 11:25:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well we will most likely have all major troops with drawn by early or mid-2009, 2010 at the latest. But we are going to have 2-4 permanent bases in Iraq now & that means were going to have about 50,000 permanent troops in Iraq, not to mention the American embassy were building that is going to be the same if not bigger in size than Vatican City. Also, I wouldn't say that Iraq is in a civil war now; it's more of factional gang war between certain secular factions. But once the US troops are back in the bases that are far outside the cities, leaving the Iraqi troops & police to handle their own security, they will be even stronger & bigger in numbers so they could handle a civil war if it came about but that doesn't matter anyways. From now to 2010 so much can happen so its presumptuous to be assuming such things can or will be happening. Yeah, on the media it doesn't look to good but than again the media is biased to democrats right now because more people in the US think the war is unpopular so your only going to see the bad & not good. It will get even more biased & worse next year, I bet you. With those election campaigns, those democrats & some republicans are going to milk the war for their gain. In my opinion, don't go voting for a person cause what they will do about the war, vote for someone that will do good about everything else. Trust me, I guarantee you that when the new president gets in office not much is changing in Iraq, they will just take your attention away from it or tell you its going perfectly & pulling out now would be wrong.
2007-12-14 12:16:41
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Firstly Iraq is not a 3rd world country. It holds the 2nd biggest oil reserves in the world, it was and is still a wealthy country. Its infrastructure was destroyed by sanctions. Its been on the brink of civil war, but now there seems to be a genuine political process and tribal leaders have been brought in from the cold, with the pie now being divided more evenly, things are much quieter. If they can walk that thin line, then there may not be civil war.
There seems an amount of glee taking in that if there is its a major loss for Republicans. If there is a civil war alot of blood will be split, alot of innocents are going to die and 65% of your energy supply comes from foreign countries, the majority in that region. We should all hope both side of the aisle there is no civil war and we can get out unscathed.
2007-12-14 12:07:31
·
answer #4
·
answered by Bear F 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
If we stay until all the neighborhood cleansing is over, civil war will be a moot point because all the issues will have already been fought over. And the cleric with the most guns on each side of the Arab conflict will lead his partitioned area to parlaiment.
2007-12-14 11:28:28
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Depends on who is running our administration and how they define "civil war" as we cannot decide NOW if there is one going on or not.
It's like not being able to define waterboarding as a form of torture.
So...we will never see a civil war (in some eyes) while others sit and watch the civil war going on now continue.
2007-12-14 12:10:01
·
answer #6
·
answered by ironjag 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
We won't leave Iraq until it's as stable as possible. Hopefully we leave it in a state where everyone can get on and support each other, but we are talking about the middle east here. They are very primitive and savage people, that need to be lead in an autocratic manner. As soon as they evolve, then we can pull out, but until then, the middle east will always be a volatile part of the world, alongside Africa, and parts of Asia.
Thing is, we always associate tyrants that lead in an autocratic manner, but people will look at unruly kids and soon say that the parents need to be in tighter control, as soon as they can relate children to those parts of the world, and as soon as they can find a decent leader, we can leave in the knowledge that the country will be secure.
10 years seems like a very realistic figure, but dare I say, optimistic. We are trying to bring a 3rd world country into the 1st world, but its a 3rd world country, not just because of its previous leadership and current affairs there, but because the country is actually sh*t. The whole country needs quite literally rebuilding and, apart from oil, it has no real contribution to the world, its definitely not on top of any ones place to visit, unless you are a politician and because of the countries natural geographical and geological make up, it will always remain a sh*t part of the world.
2007-12-14 11:37:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
Knights 2009, you ought to the two get your eyes regarded at or examine your comprehensions skills. after which you will see those Q the place Aussies (consisting of a few properly respected clientele) malign Indians. in fact, I spend extra time ignoring those questions than examining significant ones.
2016-11-03 07:30:25
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
We have already caused a civil war there. They are in the midst of it now.
2007-12-14 11:27:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by lcmcpa 7
·
5⤊
0⤋
-14 years.
They are already in a civil war and we are unethically taking sides in.
2007-12-14 21:12:44
·
answer #10
·
answered by Mario Savio 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
about 15 min
2007-12-14 11:59:15
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋