Do republicans think that the Iraq war is going well?

Question

If I am unpatriotic for thinking that it is not going well, are you an idiot for thinking it is? If it isn't going well, do you still support a losing strategy, just because it is a strategy?

I'm not liberal. Please refer to my questions regarding the existance of more than 2 parties in the US.

freedom doesn't fill your belly, or power your home. Hamas was the democratically elected government (yea democracy) and WAY more than 2500 people are dead. How many 'free' Iraqis did we kill?

no, stormy it is NOT what Reagan did. Reagan won the cold war by bankrupting a country. We thought that nuclear attacks were eminient, and he avoided ALL war. Now, we are creating enemies, who are creating MORE nuclear weapons. I WISH this administration followed in Reagan's footsteps (who, by the way, would be considered left of center, these days)

stormy, speaking of details...I am not a liberal. And the UK stopped those attacks, not the US! Incredible misinformation on your part. Minus 2 pts

Answer 1

If John McCain is any indication, then, No, the Republicans are not happy with the situation in Iraq. I would expect that as soon as the November elections are over, then we'll see the next Presidential election begin to heat up, and both sides will be taking a position that will bring our troops home.

George Bush has about 2 years left in his presidency to bring a positive outcome to his Iraq plans. I'm afraid the history will judge him on the basis of Iraq alone.

Answer 2

No sane person would believe the U.S. efforts in Iraq are going well.

The question politicians are grappling with is what to do next.

President Bush and other Republicans say the U.S. should "stay the course" because it is important in the war on terrorism. They say Americans should not "cut and run," and accuse the Democrats and more liberal Republicans of advocating just that.

Critics of that policy say that "the course" is failing and the U.S. should do something else. Some Democrats say the U.S. should pack up and leave as soon as possible. Others take a more moderate approach: The U.S. should set a deadline for withdrawal to let the Iraqi government know they'll have to get ready quickly to stand on their own.

Whether the U.S. was right or wrong to invade Iraq (I think it was a horrible mistake, by the way.), deciding what the next steps should be has become a nearly unfathomable moral question, made all the more difficult to resolve because each side of the issue is attempting to use the war to its own political advantage.

The badly planned invasion has led to a bloody civil war among Muslim sects, who have killed more of each other than Americans have killed -- and more than they have killed Americans. And the killing has escalated since Iraqis installed a democratically elected government, which was one of the main U.S. benchmarks for victory.

Republicans say that victory still is possible, but have not expressed a clear view of what it will mean to win. Many Democrats, who appear much more fragmented on the issue, say the U.S. should leave Iraq, but in a way that wouldn't lead increased chaos and bloodshed. Democrats support the "phased redeployment of troops" from Iraq to more important sites in the war on terror. But, like the Republicans, they are short on details and vision. (I'm a Democrat, by the way.)

The moral question, which should rise above political posturing, is this:

-- The U.S. invaded Iraq, at best, based on mistaken information or, at worst, as a result of lies and misinformation at the highest levels.

-- The original reason for the invasion, to capture weapons of mass destruction, proved false when troops could find no such weapons. So the reason for the invasion evolved. Now the U.S. acted to topple Saddam Hussein, an oppressive dictator, and make Iraq safe for democracy.

-- The world is full of dictators whom the U.S. has essentially ignored, some with whom the U.S. eagerly does business (China, for example).

-- Since the U.S. chose to invade Iraq, overthrow the government, and occupy the country, the civilian death toll has been staggering. Most of the Iraqis killed by other Iraqis since the U.S. invasion probably would still be alive today if America had not intervened.

-- Most Iraqis are peace-loving people who would prefer to live their lives in safety.

-- Most of the killing is being done by religious fanatics who aren't engaging each other openly but, instead, are blowing up innocent civilians.

So... the moral question is:

Since the U.S. started this mess, does it have an obligation to the majority of the Iraqi population that is not engaged in the civil war? And if so, how will the U.S. know when it has fulfilled that obligation?

I'd like to see Democrats and Republicans engage in a non-partisan discussion of this question.

Answer 3

great question.

What is interesting is that the president has declared as long as he's president we are not leaving iraq.
great.
now the problem will be inherieted by a new president.

why. because this way a real leader will have to make the hard decisions.

Bush knows, or should know that the war is not going well because he failed the Iraq people worse than us.

Iraq is a botched experiment in Nation Building...remember the debates with gore. How quickly Bush forgets.


The plans drawn up by the state dept on how to maintain power, food, electricty, law, order..
were ignonred and not put into use.

they did not send in enough troops to secure the country to this day they let looting go crazy, they couldn't seal the boarders.
the list goes on and on.


They don't get theres already a civil war going on, and it is a grab for power. It doesn't matter what government we put in power. THey are gonna fight for it, and create their own system regradless.
So if we stay we have to arm and fund one side, and then we are just installing a new dictator to replace the old one. Meanwhile our troops suffer. that is wrong.



Here is the kicker, if you point out problems, if you critize, if you demand and scream at the top of you lungs for accountablility,
then you hate america.
then you sympathize with the enemy.
then you are a liberal communist.

The republican party has become a cult, not all but there is a very vocal strain who view the word in complete black and white.
Can't deal or handle change, and would rather let american soliders die than admit they failed.

One sick bastard will try to convince you the lives of U.S troops came cheap. Cheap compared to homoside numbers in the U.S
that is sick....just sick.

Answer 4

I am a Republican. I don't know anyone thrilled with how the war in Iraq is going. But don't ever forget that almost all the news about the war is from sources with the agenda to tell only the story of how the US is losing. I am encouraged anytime I hear from soldiers and marines about how well regarded they are by the normal people of Iraq. Parents still bring their children out to shake hands with the Americans. Kids still follow the Americans and cheer when given candy.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is :"What now?" There is no honorable and long-term solution to this problem besides victory. Anything short of that just makes everything worse. Dems think we can negotiate a departure and there are acceptable consequences to that departure. Republicans know that in a region where Honor is more important than even one's own life something less than an American victory will lead to the destruction of our regional friends, and fuel even worse conflict in the future. Remember that the complete unconditional surrender of the German nation led to its eventual successful rebuilding after W W II.

What half-measure in negotiations with the Nazi regime would we be williing to accept before that war? Sometimes the struggle against evil is so important that despite the cost in blood and treasure it is still worth it.

Anyone that looks forward to a defeat in Iraq for the political defeat of Bush is unpatriotic. There was zero partisan criticism of FDR by Republicans for the enire duration of W W II. After the war has been won is the time for monday morning quarterbacks. The idea that America is deepy split on whether to keep fighting Radical Islam does nothing but encourage Radical Islam to keep fighting. These nutjobs are at least as bad as 1939 Nazis ever were. None but them will survive their victory.

Answer 5

The War is going well if you look at the big picture. I truly believe that Iran and Syria realize their way of life is about to end and are causing problems all over the region. Iran caused the Lebanese War. Iran & Syria are suppling fighters and weapons to terrorists in Iraq. Iranian leaders watch Amercian TV and think that if they more dead women & children can be put on the TV - then we Americans will lose our desire to win - WHICH IS ACTUALLY WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE ADVOCATING!! Dubya has always said that this was going to be hard and would take a long time. I know he referenced something 10 to 15 years to Win the WAR on TERRA!!
The current strategy is the right one and time will prove it. It took many years for us to win the peace in Germany after WWII and the same is true in Iraq. I just don't think we displayed enough force to ensure that Iraqi citizens sided with us instead of the terrorists and ignorant muslim leaders like Al Satr or whatever!

Answer 6

If you look at all the things that you take for granted in your life i.e. school to learn and educate yourself, immunizations against disease and illness, cell phones to communicate with whomever you want, books to read freely without scrutiny, roads to drive your car on, TV to watch (if you can find anything you're interested in), healthy food to nourish your body..... why would you deny the children of Iraq these things? Our soldiers are doing incredibly difficult things in incredibly difficult conditions. It makes it that much harder when all they get from home is criticism. I don't believe providing the Iraqi people with the same amenities that you take for granted every day is a losing strategy. It has the ability to change people's opinions of the U.S. and befriend them. It's what Reagan did to end the cold war with the Soviet Union. Influence through showing the people a better way- of life- of freedom.
If a losing strategy is millions turning out to vote for a leader despite the threats of being blown up by terrorists in the process, then I side with those who want to vote. If you were under the same conditions I wonder if you would vote or hide your head in the sand like the rest of the liberal ilk.
If you think stopping the terrorist threats like what happened in England a few days ago involving airplanes is a losing strategy then I would say you are misguided. Think if every one of those planes made it to U.S. airspace and the damage they could have caused. 3,000 more lives extinguished and you would have been calling for more to be done. Unfortunately, it's damned if you do- damned if you don't for the Bush administration. Liberals will never be happy as long as they continue to spew their uninformed rhetoric. I would never go so far as to say you are unpatriotic.... but like me, you should investigate the facts and stop listening to those who have their own agenda.
These comments come to you- not from a republican, but an independent voice.
Have a great day!!!

Answer 7

Republicans do not know what war is. Unless you have lived there you do do not know how it feels to have your house bombed and your friends killed. One day you have running water, the other day you have to drink from the river. The neo-cons know war from TV where they show us those nice, sanitized images how a laser guided missile hits a building. Clean and antiseptic it shows a scene from a video game. We do not to get to see the bodies of babies that are ripped apart. The Bush junta withholds pictures of coffins returning from Iraq with the bodies of American sons and daughters killed there. Neo-cons have never smelled the rotting bodies on which the rats are feeding. Those who are for the war are the ones furthest away from it.

In a way i hope we would get a full scale war in this country so the neo-cons would learn how it is. The neo-cons have to see what it is like when entire cities lay in ruins and when hundreds of thousands of people simply die for a lie.
What other than oil and money for the owners of this country will be achieved by this war? Has ANY war ever produces a great outcome? No war in history of mankind has EVER produced anything. Wars do nothing but destroy and make a few people very rich.

Answer 8

Yo may have noticed the rats leaving the sinking ship with Hagel and McCain criticizing publicly now. Of course the reverse is that energy industry whores like Inhofe of Oklahoma, the same moron that calls global warming a Sierra Club hoax, are calling the progress in Iraq, "Nothing short of a miracle."

So you see, as the Rethuglicans face the voters, those who will insist on "staying the course" are the ones getting paid to insist. Whatever they say publicly, however they hide behind flags and Jesus, with the Grand Oil Party all you have to do is follow the money to know what's about to be the patriotic thing to do because it's God's will.

Answer 9

In most republicans hearts, they know and fear that it is not.
Nobody likes to lose and NOBODY wants us to lose this war. That is an insult to every military family and person that wears our country's uniform to imply that a differing point of view is un-American. It's what makes us great. Those that say otherwise are just desperate to be right at all costs.

We were fools to start this war in Iraq and we are even bigger fools to continue it without a plan to win. We are stretching our resources too thin and are distracting ourselves from the real war on terror. We need a winning plan, not excuses, and sticking with the fool that got is into this mess is just not wanting to admit that this time you backed a bad idea and a losing strategy. Real men and women can and do admit when they are wrong. Sooner or later, those who deny what is right before them will have to eat their words. I hope it is not when a loved one or friend of theirs gets killed in a fruitless, unnecessary war.

Lets stick to the wars that we really need to wage, and back presidents when they are right, not just because we might have voted for them.

Answer 10

The situation in Iraq is hardly as bad as you think, or what the media portray, but it is not a bed of roses. As in any conflict, there are setbacks, but the key is to adapt, improvise and overcome. That is what we've been doing.

You also need to realize there have been numerous successes, and there are still positive gains we are making every day. It does not mean there are no issues.

General Abizaid, Commander of Central Command, fully believes that we can achieve all our goals in Iraq. I'll trust his assessment, acknowledging that it is not smooth sailing, and there is always possibilities of further setbacks. [see link]

You are not unpatriotic for thinking it is not going well, nor are we idiots for thinking it is going well and that it is NOT a losing strategy. It is a difference of opinion from a different perspective, based on conclusions drawn from different information.

The one thing we should all agree on is that the media is doing a terrible job of giving us the complete picture.