to democrats.. what is the answer to "winning" war in iraq, what should we do since bush is always wrong

Question

im serious, not sarcastic or joking

Answer 1

It sure would be nice if the US could learn to stay out of other peoples affairs in the first place.

Answer 2

Bush's blunders have resulted in such a dreadful mess that there is no possibility of recovery or "winning". It's a Republican fiasco and challenging Democrats to come up with a viable plan to fix it a rediculous and transparent manuever to assign blame to the party NOT responsible. Is this a Karl Rove specialty?

Yes, Bush has been wrong. It was wrong to misinform the Congress and mislead the public to gain support for a military misadventure that has bankrupt the nation. Congress, in failing to fulfill their oversight responsibility, has been wrong too and a number of Republicans running in the fall will have to be unseated. When the new Congress convenes, committees will have the job of exposing the many abuses of power and instances of deliberate misinformation, war profiteering, incompetence -- the list goes on and on.

Holding individuals accountable -- financially accountable -- will go a long way toward rebuilding Iraq and restoring national trust and confidence. Imagine George W. Bush's trust fund money going to rebuild water treatment facilities and restoring running water to citizens of Baghdad after five years. That personal accountability and contrition is the only hope we have. It is a start. Many administration officials, including the Vice President have been enriched as a result of the war and energy maneuvering so there will be plenty of individuals devoted to rebuilding Iraq and making amends.

Answer 3

Very tough question I suppose we can't go back and just not go to Iraq so here goes. If we developed an alternative source of energy {I'm serious not joking}. the Middle East would not have the means to continue to buy scary weapons and they would no longer be a threat. The only reason the middle east are world players at all is because they are sitting on that oil. They used to be a great civilzation east verse west the east was way ahead of the west. The muslim takeover of their societies laws has pushed them into ignorance . They have developed nothing invented nothing all their technology comes from the west . We have passed them by like they are standing still. The west was ruled by the Catholic Church during the middle ages also known as the dark ages . I'm not picking on the Catholic or the Muslim religion just when you use religion to run society you have so called holy men in charge who can make any rule and say God says so. How can you argue with that? They justify their backwardness by saying they are so much more spiritual. They are Middle ages guys with money and weapons. If noone bought their oil anymore they could go back to pounding sand. We could remove our infidel western presence. It would be a tall order to develop an alternative source of energy but I believe we could. And the reason people are so disgusted with Bush is he is an oil man promoting oil interests with this war and not even a baby step was taken toward conservation under his administration.

Answer 4

Not going there in the first place would have been the total answer.

How can we have a winning strategy for a war you can't win? You are fighting against extremist religious fanatics in an area of the world that its religious beliefs govern their countries. Why would you get into the middle of that when you don't have a chance in hell of winning? I think we had another one of those wars years ago. . . Vietnam, I believe?

Religious fanatics are hard to defeat because if you kill them, they are a martyr in the eyes of their fellow fighters, and if you don't they will just keep coming. The threat of death is no deterrent to them - they are fighting for their Allah.

So again my answer would be not to start a war you will never win. Maybe the Bushes should have listened to that philosophy before worrying about Sadam and Iraq. And isn't it obvious why they went in? OIL. . . Bush and Chenney are thick in it.

Answer 5

winning the war?

can it be won right now, there is an Iraqi civil war going on. i am not sure it can be won.

do we take a side or leave?

victory for me would have been using iraqis to rebuild thier country giving them jobs and education. but we failed to stablize the country for two years now we got what we got.....

this is an answer i have given previously


1) Pass a resolution we will withdrawl is the first step.
Why first.....because it is not clear that there is a desire to ever leave. We closed the Bin Sultan Airbase.
We now are left with the need of a strategic foothold in the region....Might as well be Iraq....13 bases a super embassy bigger than the vatican and counting...

2) Determine what role the United states will have in the Iraqi civil war.

Very important question, why?
Becaue once we decide we are going to leave, we next have to decide what role to have in the war for power amongst the Iraqi themselves.
Remember the security issue with Al Queda is completely diffrent issue than the power grab between Iraqi factions.

If we decide that we should not interfere with thier civil war then we begin to pull out troop within a
either
a) a time frame based on Iraqi achievement meaning
having enough trained troops, police, infrastructure, shcools, government, elections

or
b) a strict time frame of our choosing, suggesting that they are on their own, and that whatever government WE establish will be replaced by the will of the people. We desinate a couple of years and pull out gradually. or whatever time line is most sensible.

If we decide to take a side in the Iraqi civil war we must then not only back and arm one side but offer intellgence and training.
We can pull out troops and fund monteralliy our choosen side and give them US weapons.....this has backfired inthe past.

3) To win correctly......


a) Pour more troops into the region, more troops to secure the borders,
create real securtiy

b) Elect a new congress to investigate

war profiteering....

and elect a new adminstration.

c) after a gradual withdrawl of troops Use the UN and nieghboring countries to form a coalition as in Kosevo

d) Create jobs in Iraq, giving
the people the opportunity to eat..

e) Create stability...

Answer 6

First of all, it was a bad decision to invade iraq in the first place because the intelligence on wmd's was poor.

Second, it was a bad decision because the US acted almost unilaterally - its essential to act collaboratively as a member of the UN.

Third, it was a bad decision, because the estimates on the amount of time, troops, and money required to create stability in the region were wildly off.

What should we do now?

First, work actively with the UN to create a multinational solution including a multinational peacekeeping force in Iraq.

Second, work to restore credibility with the international community.

Third, listen closely to the needs and desires of the peoples in the region and work toward meeting those needs, instead of imposing what Bush thinks they might want.

Answer 7

I believe that post 9/11 if Gore had won in 2000, he too would have been urged to invade Iraq too. Everything would have panned out just as they have been up till now. To ask what would have been done different post 9/11 and what strategies to use by either party is irrelevant. The world needed to oust that madman, before he gave the other madmen more weapons and support.

Answer 8

This is the question and the plan that should have had an answer by Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfwitz, and Cheney BEFORE they ever began the occupation.

Now the GOP points the finger at the Democrats and says, "what's your plan, if you don't like our lack of a plan?"

Answer 9

i am not a democrat but to win the war it is very simple . when the iraqi army and polce force are capable of protecting themselves the war is over and won

Answer 10

Just leave and pump all the saved money into Inner City programs and the Katrina HDTV fund.