I mean Iran and Syria are developing nuclear weapons and continuing to train terrorists so why doesn't the UN sanction Iran and let the U.S. and its allies invade Iran and Syria while we are already in Iraq? It is better to fight the enemy on their own territory than wait for them to attack us like they did on 9/11/01 isn't it?
am i a mom
Favorite Answer
no our war goal has not been met, bush knows this and so we will stay there until it is. our first goal was to get saddam out...done next we wanted to establish a democratic gov.....thats' done on paper only for the most part, and last we have to turn over the gov to the people. and that has not happened yet due to the shiites and sunnis not being able to get their acts straight.
the greatest military theorist said war is policy by other means. these were our policies and til they are completed war will continue
coragryph
Well, first, the US is not in Iran or Syria, so our efforts in Iraq have nothing to do with what those countries do.
Second, there isn't a lot of proof (either way) that what we're doing has any significant impact on what terrorists outside Iraq are doing. Or for that matter, on what terrorists inside Iraq are doing.
It's sheer speculation (might be true, might now) that the insurgents fighting against US forces in Iraq would suddenly start attacking US cities if the US left. More likely, they'd continue their own civil war without interference from us. And those terrorists who are planning on hitting the US or Europe probably aren't spending their days planting IEDs along Iraqi highways. They're already overseas planning their attacks.
So, it's highly debatable whether our presence in Iraq is having any effect toward stopping other terrorist attacks outside Iraq.
Finally, look at it from a cost-benefit perspective. How much money (tens of millions) and how many lives (dozens) did it cost for the US to invade Iraq and topple Saddam's government . How much money (tens of billions) and how many lives (thousands) has it cost for the US to remain in Iraq and try to force them to set up a new government. Which, by the way, is nowhere close to being ready to take over their country.
What we should have done is pull out after "Mission Accomplished" and allow Iraq to set up whatever government it wanted. If we didn't like the results, we go in, topple it, and tell them to try again. We could have done that 10 times and still spent only 1% of the money and lost 1% of the lives that we have so far under the current plan.
So, regardless of the goals, the means we're using to accomplish them are highly wasteful of both resources and American lives. And from any perspective, stupid means are not a good way to achieve any goals.
historybuff
Iraq is difficult to say the least but there is no way that the US can pull out - also, we cannot afford to conduct the war in three countries. If Iran and Syria continue their aggressive acts, the US will need assistance from other countries to include Israel. It would be interesting to see how the Middle East would divide at that point. Do you seriously think Ned Lamont is in his right mind?
brian L
Are you forgetting a little country called Afghanistan. The place where this crap really started. If you stay in Iraq all you do is give the terrorist shooting practice against our troops. If we leave the terrorist will be caught up in the civil war going on there and will go to either Lebanon or Afghanistan possibly Pakistan. If we make our stand in Afghanistan it will be much easier for us to see the bastards there is no cities except Kabul and we own it. Plus NATO is already there so we won't be alone. This is a good place to beat the **** out of terrorist . However to really defeat the terrorist you have to convince Israel to make an honorable face saving peace with the Palestinians this will pull the plug on the major motivating force of the terrorist. Without that the terrorist will run out of money and weapons or people willing to take them in.
Schmorgen
Think about that for a minute. Have you seen the war in Iraq? Do you really think we can afford, in any sense of the word, to expand that war into two other countries? Terrorists aren't a soveriegn army, they are a group of people spread throughout the world who get mad when we do things like invade soveriegn nations unprovoked. We can kill everyone in Iran, Iraq, and Syria and there will still be terrorists.