2006-11-13 04:20:00 · 17 answers · asked by Blessed 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Define winning. We are killing Islamic expansionists in Iraq as opposed to on our own streets. They are expending their resources against us there as opposed to here.
I would support a pull out on the condition that for every Westerner that is killed by a Muslim, we nuke a muslim city. Also all Muslims living in the Europe, Australia or the Americas go back to the Islamic world.
2006-11-13 04:25:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
No, I'm not, but we certainly are killing allot of people, ours included.
To date no one has ever successfully occupied Iraq.
And for those who keep making the silly statement "We have not had another attack in America" IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK US!
during address to the United States Naval Academy, November 30, 2005. [69]
There was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the attack of 9/11, I’ve never said that and never made that case prior to going into Iraq.
President Bush was in the midst of explaining how the attacks of 9/11 inspired his “freedom agenda” and the attacks on Iraq until a reporter, Ken Herman of Cox News, interrupted to ask what Iraq had to do with 9/11. “Nothing,” Bush defiantly answered.
Most of the Hijackers were Saudi nationals.
2006-11-13 04:48:48 · answer #2 · answered by Black Dragon 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Win?
Winning implies that the U.S. is no longer a target for attack. Things like dropping cluster mines and napalm on cities, and Abu Ghraib and the rape scandals make the U.S. even more of a target. In the American quest to destroy muslim radicals, we have inadvertantly motivated even more people to join their cause. We are sewing the seeds of a global conflict between muslims and the U.S. Our children will be facing not 11 men who will die for the cause like we did on 9/11, but millions unless we change our tactics.
There are no good solutions. We can stay in Iraq until the U.S. goes bankrupt and we can no longer afford this massive army to protect us. If we leave and stop interfering with them, we will probably be attacked anyway. However, most of the arab world will calm down if we leave: the psychos who will still hate us would hate us no matter what we do. The U.S. retains the ability to defend itself, and has to defend against fewer enemies.
Remember that muslims are just as human as the rest of us. They had a few genuine grievances, like CIA sponsored coups (Iran) and U.S. economic control of what was technically their oil (Iraq/Kuwait) and being used as expendable pawns in proxy wars with the Soviets (Afghanistan). Religious nuts are religious nuts, but I have faith that a sincere apology would work wonders for calming the mass support behind the psychotic leaderships.
2006-11-13 04:45:23 · answer #3 · answered by Wise1 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nothing is set in stone with respect to war. Nobody, absolutely nobody can predict an event that relies on one side killing the other, capturing opponents, out maneuvering or being able to hide better.
Winning or losing as a question is like comparing war to a video game. When it's blood and guts on both sides and the battle goes on it's all political and political propaganda.
If you are searching for the correct answer because of your particular political belief you won't find it. If you want to know based on body count.... I would say we are winning. If you base it on strategy or who's winning the propaganda war.... We are probably loosing.
I believe the question should be: Are we really battling to spread the democratic word or do we simply disagree ideologically? And, is either a good reason?
2006-11-13 04:36:40 · answer #4 · answered by ggraves1724 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I've gotten into a similar discussion with friends. Of course, they all refuse to even consider if we've been defeated in vietnam.
my belief is this: Victory means accomplishing a preset goal...in vietnam's case, preventing the spread of communism
is united vietnam (north and south) communist today? yes. did we prevent the spread of communism? no
post hoc ad propter hoc
we were defeated in vietnam because we didn't complete our objective.
What makes iraq such an interesting case is that it is difficult to determine WHAT that objective was, there's so many different theories.
were we there to overthrow saddam hussein? to disarm him of weapons of mass destruction? bring democracy to the middle east? the objective is changing all the time, or at least its focus
given that in mind, i would say we've already been defeated soley based on principle. the insurgency knows what's fighting for. i think the american people are still trying to decide why we're there
2006-11-13 04:32:23 · answer #5 · answered by Andrew 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
We're just waiting for Iraq to police themselves because that's what we are doing is being policemen for them.
2006-11-13 04:23:56 · answer #6 · answered by Sean 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, I am not. Look what has happened in the past when America has meddled in business they shouldn't have. You can't change an entire society's way of life without major rebellion.
2006-11-13 04:24:01 · answer #7 · answered by dolly 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Well, Haliburton is still trying to win the oil. That's about it.
2006-11-13 04:23:02 · answer #8 · answered by flip4449 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
We are, and if we didn't have to kowtow to civilians the military could have been home a year or more ago.
2006-11-13 04:25:05 · answer #9 · answered by Have gun, will travel. 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
159 people were killed yesterday. If that's winning maybe we should try losing. I can't see it being any worse.
2006-11-13 04:27:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋