2006-11-18 16:08:20 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes, in spite of the democrats.
2006-11-18 16:25:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋
This is a different war now. Years of oppression have unleashed an endless cycle of retribution. We are very close to civil war and there is still a desire of the participants to kill one another. Untill the participants have had enough of the killing, there will not be peace and the war is not winnable (and American soldiers will be caught in the middle).
2006-11-18 16:17:44 · answer #2 · answered by lakewood_lefty 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i imagine that you answer this question your self in that the loyalty the Iraq's ought to the tribes. This warfare replaced into by no potential about triumphing. It replaced into PR for the warfare on terror and bush received. purely as you've republicans argueing with democrats, you locate the sunnis battling with the Shi'as. so as far because the west is worried the warfare is received, besides the undeniable fact that the destiny implications of attempting to get the political area of issues operating will take years.
2016-11-29 06:36:48 · answer #3 · answered by gnegy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm sure some will contend that no war is "winnable."
This is simply ant-war rhetoric. History is replete with wars that were decisively won.
This war will ultimately be won or lost by the Iraqi people's willingness to stand up and fight for their own rights and freedoms.
We can give them all of the military and humanitarian aid we can muster - it will make no difference if the Iraqi people don't condemn the terrorists and actively fight to defeat them.
2006-11-18 16:19:28 · answer #4 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, but it will take a complete redirection of use of power. First and foremost, we need to quit allowing the media to ride along with the troops. If they want to be there, they should be allowed, but only under their own protection. Second, we need to seal off the borders to Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. This will require more troops, but it must be done to stop the flow of radicals into the country. Third, we need to become more aggressive. No more of this shoot only when shot at BS should be allowed. The war can be won, but it will require much change.
2006-11-18 16:22:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Saddam in out, which was our main objective, regardless of
the other excuses to justify the action. The war right now is
between the Sunnis and the Shiites trying to get the upper hand
and we are just caught in the middle and no matter who wins, it will be another Muslim controlled country, hopefully more moderate. Now is the time for us to get out.
2006-11-18 16:22:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I certainly hope so and I fully support our president and our troops on their mission. I think if we succeed in bring democracy to Iraq, it will help stabilize the region and remove a safe haven for terrorists. However...
consider the history of Iraq. Before the fall of the Ottoman Empire in WW1, there was no Iraq. It was three seperately governed provinces, Vilayet of Mosul (Kurds), Vilayet of Bosra (Sunnis), and Vilayet of Baghdad (Shiites). These areas fell under British rule and were forced into one unified territory which gained it's independence in 1936 as Iraq. The three factions have been engaged in bloody battle for control ever since.
I think to honestly win this one, we may need to allow Iraq to split back into the three seperately governed territories again. Once each of them are given back self-rule, the motivation for fighting one another is removed.
Think this is far fetched? Consider that post-WW2 we split Germany into East and West. Now, we've moved past those post-war boundaries and allowed Germany to reunify. If we can get past WW2, why not WW1?
2006-11-18 16:20:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
We can't win the war and make peace, the way the war is being run right now. If there was policy changes and a proper amount of troops and supplies over there, then we could and would prevail.
2006-11-18 16:15:35 · answer #8 · answered by jack jr 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Sure it is...all you have to do is to make it very painful for the Americans and they will quit....they did this in Vietnam...now the same group of folks want to lose this one too. They have a right to have that opinion....of course....when this emboldens the Iranians and they present a credible threat to Israel then the Israelis will respond...About 90% of the Iranian population lives in 8 cities..the Israelis, seeing the very real potential for another Holocaust, will take care of those 8 cities and 6000 years of human histroy will go up in smoke...the big dividend for us will be one fifth of the world's oil supply being irradiated. But ...the dangerous thing in today's world is that if you encourage terrorism...it will grow....sure....they can easily win..
2006-11-18 16:25:05 · answer #9 · answered by James C 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
first of all the war is with terrorism not Iraq
and fighting terrorism is like the battle between good and evil
we are likely to not see it in our lifetime or the next generation for that matter. bush just simply wanted to secure those oil fields and apply pressure on Iran and Syria. Iraq presented an opportunity for the US to go in with the excuse of freeing the Iraqi people.
we are now occupying the country and will for sometime to come until we can brainwash them to see things our way and scare off Iran in the process
2006-11-18 16:18:13 · answer #10 · answered by Enigma 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Technically we won when Saddam was removed from power.
The USA will not be able to win the peace, unless a new plan is put in place. The Iraqi people don't like being occupied.
If someone occupied the USA for several years, we'd be unhappy too!
2006-11-18 16:10:52 · answer #11 · answered by Villain 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋