Bush is always saying that he won't cut and run, that he will win in Iraq. How will he know when he has won in Iraq? What are his parameters of 'WON'? How will he win against terrorism and exactly what is his definition of winning the war against terrorism?
2006-10-18 13:58:24 · 15 answers · asked by me_worry? 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Our Military will win in Iraq despite the resistance put up by the Democrats. The Democrats assisting the terrorists makes it a little slower but we will win. Our Presidents definition of winning is killing the terrorists over there so we do not have to fight them over here.
2006-10-18 14:05:03 · answer #1 · answered by daydoom 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Another "Bushism", it is just a propaganda ploy he's using to try to boost American morale, it's just too bad for him that those statements don't hold water any longer. We still have not been shown a definitive link between the pre-emptive war on Iraq and WMD's or 9/11. Why are we still there when the reason for invading in the first place never came to be? His parameters for leaving Iraq is when his administration is confident that the government they have installed in Iraq will govern the country according to THEIR plan. Until the infighting (that NEVER happens here...) stops in their infant government he won't leave..he wants to make sure the futures he has in oil are well protected. To be honest we will never leave Iraq....we will always maintain a military presence... look at Germany, Cuba, Japan, etc...once we win a piece of land we don't ever give it back.
P.S. troops will NOT be coming back by next summer, we will be sending more out.
2006-10-18 14:08:14 · answer #2 · answered by Katie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
..We already "won"; We took down their leader (Our main objective) and destroyed their army..Its more of an occupation until their government gets on their feet and can fight down the extremest by themselves..Their army/police is about 55% done now, and was closer to 10% a year ago..So alot of progress is being made, Like the Iraqi President said, "Well be able to support ourselves in no more than a year"..Not the exact words but yeah..That was a couple months ago; So by next summer most troops will come back..Not all..Well still have around 50,000-75,000 in bases..Like we have 30,000 in S Korea and their hasnt been serius fighting their since the 50s..Well have bases in Iraq until about 2010..Then, hmm, like Bush stated, 90% of the troops will be coming home,,
Dont beleive the Liberal propoganda!..We have won the war! Now we have to finish the occupation!
2006-10-18 14:04:11 · answer #3 · answered by I Hate Liberals 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Winning Iraq means leaving that country with a popularly elected, stable government, that will not threaten other nations.
His idea of planting democracy will allow people demand stablity to allow themselves to prosper, rather than inflicting terror. Palestine is a good example. Under Abbas, Palestine was starting to progress and stablize. Now with Humas in charge (with and agenda of continued terror) Palestine is more unstable thanbefore Arafat died.
2006-10-18 14:08:48 · answer #4 · answered by zax_fl 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a political war which we cannot win because we have lost so much credibility. It's become a Civil War in Iraq.
2006-10-18 15:52:01 · answer #5 · answered by Lynda 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Staying until we complete the job. Helping the Iraqis set up security needed to help establish a government that works. What would we gain by turning our backs on something that both, I remind you, parties voted to do? Freedom doesn't come easily or without bloodshed, plenty was shed in establishing this country and keeping us free. Wake up!
2006-10-18 14:14:42 · answer #6 · answered by rosi l 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's impossible to win in Iraq, just as it was impossible to win in Nam, just as it's impossible to win against terror with a military designed to fight pitched land battles.
2006-10-18 14:09:02 · answer #7 · answered by notme 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ok prevailing in Iraq is "do no longer enable the terrorists take over the country" The poor human beings had sufficient of undesirable leaders, Sadam. i really recognize our troops they seem to be some type of persons with authentic braveness. ok Democrats opt to run, and in basic terms say it is individuals fault for the terrorist blowing us up, NO way.. we want someone it truly is solid like John Mcain.
2016-12-04 23:42:57 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
we're going to stay there until we train an army and police decently and then the elected government can run things...
the only real problem here... the elected government seems to be very friendly with Iran... so... when we leave... yeah... they will probably be like Iran jr.... kind of a catch 22
2006-10-18 14:26:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They capture the Iraq's share of the Caspian Sea (the world's largest oil deposits).
2006-10-18 14:01:23 · answer #10 · answered by Sam X9 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋