2006-11-01 02:31:56 · 22 answers · asked by playtoofast 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Political correctness, media coverage, and the Iraqi peoples' unwillingness to stand up against open violence in their country from religious sects or foreign Arab insurgents.
2006-11-01 02:35:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's got to the point now where the militias there have to be disarmed. Shiites being backed by Iran and Sunnis being backed by Syria have become the main problem now in what appears to be a civil war. Enough troops should be brought in from Germany for 90 days to work with the Iraqi army and police to disarm these two groups
2006-11-01 03:02:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In short, we have not proven to the enemy that continued fighting is a wasted effort. Our words and actions in effect encourage them.
General Sherman said war is hell, but he also said the way to win is not to seek to win hearts and minds, but to make the enemy so weary of war that even their grandchildren will be afraid to pick up weapons in rebellion. Sherman's march through Georgia, and the Allied bombing campaigns in Germany and Japan, were absolutely brutal. But they pretty much decided things - who won, and who gave up.
I generally support Bush's policies, compared to the alternative, but I think we should have used more troops and crushed the insurgents - going into Iran ans Syria if necessary. Al-sadr should be dead, not invited to join the government.
I also think that if our population were more united, the terrorists would be much more discouraged and likely to stop blowing up US troops and Iraqi citicens.
We have the force to prevail. I'm not sure we have the will to do what it takes - more casualties on our side, and theirs. (FDR fought in Asia, Europe and Africa, and we lost more soldiers on the morning of D-Day than we have in almost four years in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of enemy soldiers and civilians died in the Dresden and Tokyo bombings, not to mention the A-bomb blasts.) If we don't, we might as well come home, and disband our military. We will have convinced the world we are unwilling to fight.
Maybe the lesson is that pre-emption and enforcing cease-fire agreements don't garner sufficient support from the American people (at least not when a Republican does it) to allow us to do anything about it. Let the world know - do what you like, and as long as you don't attack a US city all we'll do is talk. Save your strength (while the US sleepwalks), until you are so strong that America CAN'T do anything about it.
I just think the consequences of losing would be truly catastrophic.
2006-11-01 02:43:27 · answer #3 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because all the US is doing in Iraq is causing more resistance and hatred for the US. The insurgence the army keeps dealing with are a product of the United States being in Iraq. We are not helping the situation at all, if anything, we are creating more terrorists. It's like Viet Nam, there is no point or solution to this war. We need to just leave seeing as how Iraq has become a huge graveyard for American soldiers.
2006-11-01 02:36:52 · answer #4 · answered by Autogestion 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Bush is holding himself back from winning the war. He is concerned about what the liberals (domestic and international) will think of taking necessary actions to win the war.
We should have taken over Iraq, declared martial law, removed all guns from Iraqi's (to be returned later) and shot on sight anyone with a gun. Now do you think the liberal world would have liked this?
2006-11-01 02:38:23 · answer #5 · answered by Are_You_Stupid? 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
PC. Oh, we can't bomb a cemetary with 18 KNOWN terrorists in it. That would be damaging to the Muslim faith. Um, so instead we have to hunt them down when they have all of their goons with them and risk countless American lives rather than say "Hello" with a 500 lb gift from 30k ft? That makes sense.
Seriously, if we went in there and unleashed the hounds from hell that is our military,we'd be home in no time. But no, we have to bow to the pressure of those who think we should all play with Nerf guns just to make sure nobody gets hurt.
That and us staying there without an exit plan is causing the Iraqis to not stand up. Why would they if an American can take the bullet for them? If we start pulling back, they would be forced to watch out for themselves. It's kind of like welfare. Why should I get a job if I get money to sit on my couch and eat Oreos?
2006-11-01 02:55:42 · answer #6 · answered by Brian I 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because we went there for the wrong reasons. We are an occupying force much like the British were in America back in the 1700's. Do you think the Americans would have submitted to the redcoats? I dont think we belong there (in Iraq). What would victory be? obliterating the enemy (the Iraqi nationalists)? If the British would have obliterated the enemy there would have been very few Americans left... just the few traitorous loyalists to the crown.
2006-11-01 02:37:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Many reasons. The main problem is the sectarian violence. That is the reason that Bush Sr. did NOT remove Saddam from power during the gulf war. He was insightful enough to realize how difficult that would be. Saddam kept everyone in Iraq under his thumb. Sure he was an evil dictator, but does that mean we must (for moral reasons) remove China's, North Korea's, Iran's (and countless other) dictators as well? Even if we wanted to, we don't have the manpower for such operations.
This was all about oil, oh and giving no bid contracts to their buddies such as Haliburton!
2006-11-01 02:41:22 · answer #8 · answered by Rwebgirl 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
One small detail for starters. Muslims believe it's sacrilege to be occupied by non Muslims! It's an even worse affront when infidels occupy holy cities, and there are several in Iraq. The US immediately started building bases, and had plans for between 7 to 14 altogether. The US still hasn't stated that it's not there forever, and this upsets those Iraqis!
2006-11-01 02:38:32 · answer #9 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
GW told us all, on many occasions, that this war on terror was going to be long and difficult. The war in Iraq, whether one wants to admit it or not, is a front being fought that is part of the war on terror. We WILL win it (get the Iraqi government to where it can operate independently of our help) eventually.
2006-11-01 02:39:02 · answer #10 · answered by just the facts 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋