Read the following article from the bbc. What did the Iraqi Prime Minister mean by this. To what extent is this true? If you were an Iraqi what would be the pros and cons to the recent changes in Iraqi that have led to a more "independent" Iraq
Rico Abreu
9/1/2010 09:06:38 am
When the prime minister said Iraq was sovereign and independent he mean that Iraq can run itself without the US. I don’t think this is true because Iraq is not independent because rely on the US for too much military support. If I were an Iraqi I would think my country was in a lot of trouble because the US is not there. I would be afraid that the government would go back to the way it was before the US was there.
Raul Alcantar
9/1/2010 03:24:36 pm
Even though the prime minister said that Iraq is now "sovereign and independent," the country hasn't reached that point. Iraq is on training wheels from the US. First of all, their military still relies on training from US combat troops in order to protect the people. Second, a strong, stable government has not been established by the people themselves. And lastly, violence has not been under control which demonstrates the weakness of their security forces. If Iraq were fully independent, it wouldn't need help from US troops.
Lauren
9/2/2010 02:53:06 am
Although there will still be misunderstandings and incidents of violence, the iraq government now needs to step up to the plate, and take control of their own country.
Kenny
9/2/2010 01:27:16 pm
i dont understand how the prime minister can say that Iraq is sovereign and independent. if the US is still there aiding the Iraqis in government and military trainning. they odviously have a long way to go before they are structured and independent enough to be on their own again.If i was and Iraqi i would be in fear of the removal of US troops in Iraq.
Ireri Bernal
9/2/2010 02:40:40 pm
Independence cannot be reached with the help of another country. At least so without the aiding country asking for something in return. How can the freedom of independence be reached if a country is "weak" and unstable? Clearly the United States has been and continues to be the backbone of Iraq. Just because the numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq has decreased, doesn't necessarily mean that Iraq will be without any military influence of the united states. One way or another the United States is still interfering with Iraqi relations .Because Iraq still doesn't have a stable government the United States will not completely let them be independent, they will not risk all the progress they have accomplished. There's no way that Iraq can successfully manage without the help of the United States , especially with the lack of structure that they currently obtain.
Kendra Dunseth
9/2/2010 03:15:53 pm
The Prime Minister had me rolling on the floor laughing my butt off when he claimed Iraq was "sovereign and idependent." If that was indeed true, why were 85 people killed in the first 3 weeks of August? Why does our country still need to occupy Iraq? And why do his own people have such little trust in their own government? Nouri Maliki is hoping to gain restorability and confidence back into his country. Goodluck Mr. Maliki. You won't be achieving those goals by lying to your people. If I were an Iraqi I'd be pissed that the U.S. was leaving us. I would feel weak and defenseless, like there was no one to protect me. I would be tempestuous at my government for not being more efficient but at the same time be hopeful that one day Iraq can be successful. I would be happy to know we were on the right track. Iraq is on the path to stability, America needs to clear that path in order for them to follow it without being stopped by road blocks--such as Al-Qaeda. Comments are closed.
|
Mr. LPart teacher/part entertainer/ part coach/ part task master Archives
November 2014
Categories |