For all concerned. More Marines killed today, dozens of Iraqis killed today.
"Our course over the next year or two will determine whether the American and Iraqi people and the next president of the US will face a slowly but steadily improving situation in Iraq or... the very real risk and possible reality of a regional conflagration," he said.
Robert Gates: Senate Hearing 05/12/06
He said we are LOSING in Iraq.
2006-12-05 05:08:58 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No Bottles, When asked by the Defence Chairman designate.. 'are we winning in Iraq,?' He answered a categoric 'NO'
2006-12-05 05:28:09 · update #1
We are losing in Iraq. That's clear to anyone with a working brain. Admitting it is another thing altogether. That's the biggest problem people have where this war is concerned - their egos. Just like President Bush, there are many who are simply unable to admit when they are wrong. They'd rather label others as unpatriotic and hope that it sticks. It's hardly unpatriotic to want to change our position if our position is failing our country. If we are to "win" in Iraq our strategy has to seriously change. I'm not a war expert, none of us here in YA are, but I know enough about politics and am old enough to have been through a couple of wars. This is the same style of rhetoric we got out of the White House during Vietnam. They would tell the public one thing (we're winning) and privately discuss how our strategy was failing (we're losing). This isn't conjecture on my part either, that part of the Vietnam quagmire has been public knowledge for a long time. This war is shaping up to be the same b.s. as far as political rhetoric vs. what is really happening over there goes. The lemmings will keep parroting (yeah, I know I'm mixing my metaphors) whatever Bush says, while the rest of us put hope in a new Congress/Senate and new advisors to give us some fresh and workable solutions to this nightmare in the Middle East.
2006-12-05 05:44:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
NO. Louis Farakon, notwithstanding the spelling, and his following isn't seen mainstream Muslim everywhere interior the worldwide, yet relatively no longer interior the midsection East. he's a comedian tale, a racist and a consumer of Black individuals for his very own financial earnings.
2016-10-04 22:06:04 · answer #2 · answered by greenwell 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do accept it. And to what the guy above me said, you should know that there are still plenty of horrific Saddam-like leaders around the world today, and we're not going after them... Why not?
Because they didn't hurt W's daddy and they aren't sitting on oil fields. And now so many of our soldiers have been killed in defense of - what??? It saddens and sickens me, but today, with Gate's speech, the truth is out! Now the healing can begin.
2006-12-05 05:16:49 · answer #3 · answered by Not so looney afterall 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
To claim that we are "losing" is not the same as claiming that our presence is a "failure" or "disaster."
You obviously did not know that America came close to losing WWII. But that went better than expected, didn't it?
Some of you libs are so aching to be correct about something, you'll gladly cheer if we're defeated in Iraq. Shame.
2006-12-05 05:27:09 · answer #4 · answered by C = JD 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
America uses the refrigerator art method of Combat Strategy.
No mater how unrecognizable the crayon drawing is it still get hung on the refrigerator with a magnet.
The US foreign policy is in fact America's crayon composition of Peace on Earth and Good will to Men
Go big Red Go
2006-12-05 05:16:37 · answer #5 · answered by 43 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
There are problems in the Middle East but there have been huge advances also. Education, housing, sewars, water treatment plants, colleges have reopened, women are encouraged education and careers not only to help their families but to help rebuild the country as well. Sure, lets pull out and then hear the cries of what about education, what about freedom of speech, what about women's rights, what about the sanctity of life. People need to choose freedom and what comes with it, or the alternative.
2006-12-05 05:25:39 · answer #6 · answered by PDK 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Bush has staked all his bets on the success of his venture in Iraq. He doesn't admit failure, and neither do his followers. He has retained his credibility longer than warranted because of the quasi religious leader overtones worked into his personna by his amoral image makers.
Good series in the Washington Post Sunday on Bush's place in history....
2006-12-05 05:27:56 · answer #7 · answered by Snowshoe 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It is. I knew that before we got there.
We never LEARNED from Vietnam.
This is a POLICE action, but we aren't doing what POLICE do, instead we are sending in an Army trained to fight WW2.
We should be doing what Vice Squads do. We should put phony hookers on the street and then hide in buildings with bazookas and when Insurgents strike at the hooker open fire on their vantage points. It's using the INSURGENT methods. The Police VS Bonnie and Clyde.
We need to follow the model of Vice and Drug enforcement, which is far more effective.
2006-12-05 05:17:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Are you saying that the 'quote' above is equal to saying we're losing ?
Or did he actually say that in another speech/memo ??
Regardless of which, if a football team is losing in the first or second quarter, that never means they'll lose the whole ballgame !!
A simple analogy . If you're honest and rational, you'll understand !!
2006-12-05 05:20:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
No one is going to listen to you from the USA after you defended the innocence of Iran's leaders and intentions. Why don't you cross the border into Kashmir where I understand it is quite shaky there lately.
2006-12-05 05:18:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋