It meets the neocon agenda. They insist that the U.S. military must be strong enough to control the world, or else the world will descend into chaos.
Bush has never clearly defined what winning is, nor has he set a timetable.
2006-11-05 05:33:35 · 18 answers · asked by notme 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
There were initially plans to build 14 permanent bases. They've cut it to 6 or 7. You're wrong - winning is winning, you libs don't know what "is, is"!
2006-11-05 05:41:22 · answer #1 · answered by Snowshoe 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ah the wonderful liberal discussion group... Go Read some Ann Coutler and understand why we don't even bother to try to get you to understand facts, quotes, or the law.
I will be giggling in about 10-15 years when Iraq will be listed in the history books as the first Democracy in the Middle East, a stable and happy US Ally in the continuing war against Communism (China, North Korea, and Venezula... Cuba would have sought admission to the Union as the 52nd State).
Hillary will have been convicted for raping one of her female staffers, Bill will have been shot when caught in bed with a soldiers wife, and Paul Begala & James Carville will move to France to finally wed.
2006-11-05 13:46:03 · answer #2 · answered by mariner31 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Regardless of what Bush wants, regarding Iraq, the Republicans will not support an endless stay in Iraq.
It is probably inappropriate to set clear timetables, since that notion is inconsistent with understanding the war on terror.
I'm pretty sure that your definition of the "neocon agenda," is your interpretation. I do not agree.
A clear victory is difficult to define, and I would think more easily accomplished with air strikes.
Did it ever occur to you that a ground war is liberal appeasement?
2006-11-05 13:40:36 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
As long as necessary to do the job, which, among other things, is to be sure that al Qaeda does not have free rein to set up camps -- or even take over the country. You may note that we had troops in Germany for sixty years. In case you had not noticed, there is a war on, and if you do not win, you lose.
2006-11-05 13:38:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In addition to being The Decider, Bush has seen himself as a nation-builder, bringing freedom and American-style democracy to countries even if they don't want it. As a result, there will be troops in Iraq until hell freezes over, or we get a Democratic president, whichever comes first.
2006-11-05 13:47:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a very facist statement,you do realize this,when Russia fell we had a formidable foe to fight and now we have become the super world police since they're demise,everybody always picks the big guy to take down to prove his strength,but when theres trouble whom do they ask for help first...the big guy
2006-11-05 13:39:21 · answer #6 · answered by stygianwolfe 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no just for 2 more years and then the anti christ will com and set things straight until the end of the world
2006-11-05 13:46:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I hope so
It would make a great location for a permanent Base
Go big Red Go
2006-11-05 13:35:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
well, Halliburton ain't building them huge military complexes in Iraq for nothing. a staging area is needed to go after Iran's oil next.
2006-11-05 13:43:03 · answer #9 · answered by nebtet 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh yes he did, he said no matter what happens the troops will be there till he leaves office,he said it will be up to the next president to end it.
2006-11-05 13:41:50 · answer #10 · answered by kman1830 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋