English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I am so sick and tired of hearing that we "lost" the Iraq War or that we are "losing" the Iraq War. The last time I checked we took over that piece of crap country in two weeks and we ousted their maniacal dictator who will now, likely hang. THAT was the end of the War. This whole rebuilding of Iraq is ridiculous. Those people do not want our help. Let's leave now. America's War strategy should no longer be to try and civilize the savages. We should let the savages do what they want to do. However, when they become a threat, we should go in, take over their country and pound them back to the stone age and then LEAVE again. We can do it again, and again and again. Sooner or later, they'll get it. How do you get rid of the rats and cockroaches in New York City? You DON'T. All you can do is control the problem, so long as they don't take over and they don't go from being an annoyance to a threat.

2006-11-30 02:30:49 · 12 answers · asked by ? 4 in Politics & Government Military

Who would agree that is a better strategy than our current one?

2006-11-30 02:31:29 · update #1

Japan and Germany were not third world countries. They were misguided, to be sure, but the potential was always there. As far as the Middle East goes, forget it. They like being animals.

2006-11-30 03:21:38 · update #2

12 answers

right, the war was against Saddam Hussein and the ba'ath party, not against the people of Iraq. the whole point of it was to liberate them. second there was more than enough money in the Iraqi oil trust fund, but this was swallowed up by corrupt politicians and big corporations who took the money but didn't do the work. a lot of the insurgency is not political, it is a vendetta. a jumpy young soldier at a check point shoots up a car full of innocent people and you've got a whole family and clan taking revenge. the shia were cooperative in the beginning, but as time went by and there was no improvement, no regular electricity, no water, no sewage, no work. the hospitals closing down due to the lack of medicine and equipment. they got a tad annoyed with the Americans and British whose corporations were there to improve things but were actually just taking the cash. there was no al-qaeda there until the invasion as they saw Saddam as a heretic and he mercilessly crushed them. they came after the invasion and the break down in law and order. it is a good recruiting ground for them and they are financed by the Saudis who are terrified by the idea of a democratic shia state next door to them. we, the British and the Americans have to pay for the blundering manner which our governments chose to liberate the people of Iraq, so that millions of innocent people do not suffer. it is our fault we voted the cretins in

2006-11-30 02:53:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Nation building has been around since war was first waged. When you overthrow a regime, you put those in charge who will cater to your demands and serve your interests. Any imperial nation employs this. The Romans did it, Britain did it, the US does it. The US destroyed Germany and Japan in WWII, but rebuilt both in order to have a measure of influence over the country's future. Remember, war is an extension of politics by other means. If you can't use subterfuge to influence a country, destroy it and remold it they way you want it. We lost Vietnam, hence we haven't tried to influence that country at all. Only recently have we began to re-establish diplomatic ties with Vietnam, much to the chagrin of the Veterans of that war.

Rebuilding has more to do with the political structure of a country than the structures (buildings) themselves. If indeed we "lose" Iraq, it will have more to do with failing to "rebuild" their political structure and infrastructure than anything else.

2006-11-30 03:17:01 · answer #2 · answered by saegc7 3 · 0 0

It is all part of the medias plan to undermine the authority of the President. NBC has decided to go against the White House and call this war a civil war. The implications are horrific. Now when they report they will say "2 American soldiers were killed in the Iraqi civil war". That will anger Americans to the point of riots.

2006-11-30 02:37:04 · answer #3 · answered by only p 6 · 0 0

the problem is people who want to appose us being in iraq dont have a good excuse. yes 2800 people dieing is bad but thats only about 2200 hostile deaths(combat) we have almost 600 non-hostile deaths(helicopter crash, car crash on base, soldiers getting hit by humvees or tanks, etc.). we had 5000 people die on 9/11, 200,000 people dies in the civil war and just under 280,000 died in vietnam. so when 2800 soldiers, marines and airmen over 5 years lose their lives when we volunteer to join that amount isnt so OMG.
are we losing the war. no the war is over and what we set out to do we did. so that means we won the war and it is over.
now we need to occupy and rebuild so someone worse doesnt take over. we are trying to bring peace to a region that was seen more killing in the last 5000 years than should be ever. so it will take time.

my mama always said its not about winning, its about having fun doing it.

2006-11-30 02:57:51 · answer #4 · answered by sand runner 3 · 0 0

I find it funny, that you mention Patsy Cline? maybe you aren't old enough but Patsy was rejected by the country music scene, back in the early '60's she was called a "crossover" too don't get me wrong, I love Patsy she has the best version of "Crazy" ever Willie, Waylon, Buck Owens, Tanya Tucker, a LOT of the best were rejected by Nashville (and I don't care for Taylor, not bad, just very average) but people and tastes change Taylor connects with the young women lets just hope they stick around to listen to the "good stuff"

2016-05-23 04:55:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

If we did not help rebuild Western Europe. The Russians would have done it for us. There are political reasons, military reasons but there is also reconciliation. I think what the strategy is in today's world if we don't help rebuild then the Radical Muslims will do it such as Hamas or Hezbollah. No body wants to directly say it but that who we are fighting in today's world...Radical Muslims

2006-11-30 04:07:15 · answer #6 · answered by verduneuro 2 · 0 0

yes, i agree that we seem to be doing what was smart on paper/in the conference room. We didn't want to "waste" our effort of the strike by leaving it ripe for takeover by people we don't want to see in power over there. Then again, how much effort you wonder has been wasted on trying to build a functioning government out of people who are just not on the train..you know what i mean?

2006-11-30 02:44:11 · answer #7 · answered by lucky 4 · 0 0

American rebuilding Japan was a huge factor in our steel mills failing...Japan was operating with the "latest & greatest" while we were still using equipment that we used to help our country win the war......

2006-11-30 02:35:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It is all about the objective. If we pull out and the place becomes one giant terrorist training camp or another version of Iran then we will not have done what we set out to do.

2006-11-30 02:51:38 · answer #9 · answered by k3s793 4 · 0 0

All I know is that its all Bush's fault. All of it. If I hit my head in the morning when I get out of bed, its Bush's fault. If I burn my mouth on hot coffee its Bush's fault. Etc...etc...

2006-11-30 02:32:57 · answer #10 · answered by Average Joe 3 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers