2006-08-22 05:13:01 · 13 answers · asked by LINDA S 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
sadly, i highly doubt it
2006-08-22 05:21:38 · answer #1 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The war was over in February of 2002, since we've been involved in the OCCUPATION of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The war ended when the Iraqi army stopped fighting.
2006-08-22 12:22:14 · answer #2 · answered by Eli 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Repubs learned their lesson after the first Bush. He had a war, 80% approval ratings, but the war ended well before the election, his ratings dropped, and he then lost. So the lesson they learned: Always keep the contry in a war!
2006-08-22 12:23:54 · answer #3 · answered by Steve 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The war has been over but yet more people/soldiers are dying every day. We can only hope that this is all over with soon.
2006-08-22 12:27:24 · answer #4 · answered by Chela 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Those guiding Bush/neo-conservative foreign policy intend to establish a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq. This little-noted aim, not "oil," is the real "elephant" in the American voter's living room. (The issue of appropriating Iraqi oil and oil revenue will be dealt with after the "coalition" take-over to set up bases on Iraqi soil.) Secretary Powell's disingenuous comment on NPR (above) failed to note that in the past 50 or 60 years the United States still maintains a military presence in many countries long past "the immediate aftermath" of conflict. The currently-infamous U.S. installation at Guantanamo Bay dates back to 1901. A hundred-year stay in Iraq would not be anything new. How many bases? At what financial cost? At what continued (possibly never-ending) cost to human beings wounded or killed?The United States intends to stay in Iraq. Recall the words of President Bush: "When they hear me say we're staying, that means we're staying." Troops will not be coming home. It is time to ask members of Congress about this plot to further deplete both the national treasury and the ranks of dedicated human beings willing to serve their country. And what of the devoted aid workers sans multi-billion dollar contracts? What about the people of Iraq? How many will die to foster this experimental takeover-makeover? We can't expect straight answers from proponents of the plan. If the Ozymandias-driven neo-conservative dream of world domination is to be halted by the upcoming election, this is the issue that could make a difference.
2006-08-22 12:25:21 · answer #5 · answered by jdfnv 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Probably not, at this point we cannot pull out because then the Iraqies would be screwed. At this point it has really become a civil war that we are stuck in the middle of with no way out.
2006-08-22 12:22:42 · answer #6 · answered by April N 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The war has been over for quite awhile now.
2006-08-22 12:23:14 · answer #7 · answered by Smitty 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope. Bush already said the war won't end until he leaves office, if then.
2006-08-22 12:21:13 · answer #8 · answered by Vengeful_Hippie (AM) 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is not a war it is a occupation
2006-08-22 12:20:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Which one are you talking about? There are so many of them.
2006-08-22 13:00:36 · answer #10 · answered by SPLATT 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, we may be making enemies faster than we can kill them.
2006-08-22 12:24:11 · answer #11 · answered by Ned 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋