Iraq's Future

[Stunt]

Discuss the questions

 

[ECUHITMAN]

need to add under the length of stay in iraq, as long as it takes to get the job done.


1) for the war because of the immanent threat the WMD's presented
2) no wmd's and still no connection to 9/11
3) We must stay as long as it takes to provide security. If we do not get the job done now, we will be back in a few years.
4) Yes it is currently unstable.
5) No it will not be attacked.
6) Yes we will use our bases in iraq to attack another country. Syria most likely. Read the new articles, the same language we are currently using to describe Syria is the same as what we used to describe Iraq.
7) I am not sure if we will attack while bush is still in power, but we have 4 long years to go.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
need to add under the length of stay in iraq, as long as it takes to get the job done.

Everyone will pick that and that is open to interpretation.
This way people will at least guess based on how they think things are going.
The people who want home right away will pick the shortest time period

 

[lozina]

It's a messed up situation, how can we expect to have fair elections when the country is under occupation from a foriegn power- a foreign power which has invested alot of money into the country and is obviously concerned with who holds power there. It would be like Russian troops occupying Ukraine during their elections when they could be adversly affected by the results. Thus, don't expect anything short of an American puppet in Iraq.

Then, one can argue how can they have fair elections if we bring our troops home leaving a power vacuum? Those with military might like former Baathists can take advantage of the situation and can clearly influence the elections.

It's a no-win situation (for the Iraqi people)

 

[miketheidiot]

Iran will invade after we bomb their nuclear plant. Hence we will be attacking from our nice new bases by default.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
need to add under the length of stay in iraq, as long as it takes to get the job done.

Everyone will pick that and that is open to interpretation.
This way people will at least guess based on how they think things are going.
The people who want home right away will pick the shortest time period

Ok, then I change my answer to: Forever.

We might as well make it a State. We are never going to be able to leave. Sure some troops will come home, but we will always be there.

 

[Stunt]

Because of the tension between the two countries and the general hatred for the occupation. Along with the instability, an attack from iran is a credible option.
I'm sure they have discussed it. Once the US pulls out the ground troops.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: lozina
It's a messed up situation, how can we expect to have fair elections when the country is under occupation from a foriegn power- a foreign power which has invested alot of money into the country and is obviously concerned with who holds power there. It would be like Russian troops occupying Ukraine during their elections when they could be adversly affected by the results. Thus, don't expect anything short of an American puppet in Iraq.

Then, one can argue how can they have fair elections if we bring our troops home leaving a power vacuum? Those with military might like former Baathists can take advantage of the situation and can clearly influence the elections.

It's a no-win situation (for the Iraqi people)

And don't forget the insurgency, that appears to have no other real agenda than to establish a hostile fundamentalist Islamic state.