Why is surrender the #1 liberal solution in Iraq?

Answer 1

Perhaps the "we can't lose if we don't quit" attitude might need a bit of refining. The only other "president" who was that stupid was Francisco Solano Lopez of Paraguay.

The parallels are amazing, inept son succeeds more skilled father. Deliberately launched a war he could have avoided. Took a "we can't lose if we don't quit" attitude. Was still in the middle of the war when he was "removed from office". Is still remembered as a great hero, by propagandists.

In Paraguay however he killed off 99.5% of the adult male population and 60-75% of the entire population , mostly as soldiers,(he was the first to draft women since he was running out of men) and set South America backwards 200 years.

Trying to avoid some of that fate for North America is hardly surrender

Answer 2

I am not sure that is the #1 liberal solution.

At least I did not know we reached a consensus, let alone a quorum.

But, if we were winning the war I guess this would not be an issue.

In his speech to the people of our former enemy, George W. Bush made the connection between Iraq and Vietnam.

You know, more than 1 million Vietnamese died in the American War of aggression. I figure, if a million Americans die we would win too, but I don't think that was the conclusion he was trying to draw.

Who knows what Dub'ya was trying to say up there. To bad other Islamic nations are not stepping up to the plate. But hey, they did not start this illegal war of aggression, Dub'ya and the bamboozled American people did. And since they should be held responsible.

Could you remind me. What is the punishment for murder under US law?

Answer 3

You base your question on what facts?? And why is "stay the course" the only alternative conservatives offer?? Really, a war that shouldn't have been fought , started by men who did not have a viable plan to win the peace. Lets go back, before the war started Bush and his cronies said the war would cost 30 billion dollars and would be paid by Iraqi oil, as of today the official count is 400 billion, and sometime early next year this adventure will cost more than the entire Vietnam War, later in 2007 it will pass WWII. The entire cost is estimated to be 1-2 trillion dollars. So, I ask what is your plan?And if you are such a go getter and defender of America why aren't you over there fighting??

Answer 4

Why is it that when the suggestion is made to alter the course of the failing war people assume it's cut and run or surrender.... I don't think we can just up and pull out of Iraq and leave it in the mess it's become, but we HAVE to do something different because what we've been doing isn't making Iraq better.....It makes me sick to my stomach when I hear these comments about cut & run, surrender, troop withdrawl, etc.... And before you make a negative comment, let me assure you, I'm a veteran who served! I speak from firsthand experience....

Answer 5

they know that the Iraqi horse is dead so it's no use beating it anymore it won't move. Only the insane keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. As liberals aren't insane they now enough to say this ship won't float time to get a spot on the lifeboat.

Answer 6

Who mentioned surrender?
It seems that the war itself was a very liberal move.

Answer 7

Who are we surrendering to? Declare victory and get out is more of the number one goal. Besides, what are we accomplishing in Iraq besides spending money. We will hit the three trillion dollar mark before may.

Answer 8

Because the Democratic party has staked their political future on defeat in Iraq.

Can you imagine what kind of losses the Democrats would take in the next elections if we won?

Answer 9

Who said anything about surrender?

Answer 10

Surrender to who?