He stated 'mission accomplished' when we took down Hussein. So the war is won, right? Everything else is 'nation building'? And he has stated that 'our troops should not be used for nation building'. So I don't understand a) how is this still a war, when we had clear cut objectives to get rid of Hussein, and then we got rid of him, and b) what are the new objectives?
2006-12-15
04:32:25
·
13 answers
·
asked by
hichefheidi
6
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Hey, C=JD, although I appreciate your obsession with me, and your opinions that have absolutely nothing to do with an honest question asking someone ANYONE to explain this to me, you failed to answer the question. I blamed Bush for nothing. Read the question and answer it. Expressing your dislike for me is stupid...lots of people don't like me. But at least thay have enough personal conviction to answer a question wihtout flaming.
2006-12-15
04:41:32 ·
update #1
And still, no answer for why Bush has said these things. I didn't ask you for your opinion C=JD, I asked for answers to BUSH'S WORDS. But I guess you have to hold on to something!
2006-12-15
04:49:31 ·
update #2
yeah, I did ask what HE meant. And it is Yahoo ANSWERS, not OPINIONS, so it's kind of implied.
2006-12-15
08:30:43 ·
update #3
He has no freaking idea what winning the war entails, not that he can publicly say anyway.
Winning the war means we have a puppet government set up that we can control and a permanent military base set up there.
2006-12-15 04:35:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by Perplexed 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
OK, we all know Bush was completely wrong about calling the conflict in Iraq a war, and that we won that so-called war simply by taking out Saddam and some of his men.
To answer your more relevant questions: a)this is still a war, but now it is the Iraqi peoples' war and not ours; b)the new objectives SHOULD BE IN MY OPINION to 1)prevent Iraq from becoming a terrorist training ground like Afghanistan, 2)transport as many Iraqi civilians as possible out of the country to a safer one (either Lebanon or the UAE) because Iraq will become another Darfur if we don't, 3)make some kind of deal with Syria and/or Iran to get them to support the U.S. instead of the Shi'ite militants in Iraq, 4)now that Bolton is gone from the U.N., get the new U.S. Ambassador to lobby for some kind of U.N. assistance in Iraq, and finally 5)use as many diplomatic, political, and non-military tactics to create order in Iraq, since obviously no military plan can do the job.
2006-12-15 18:50:19
·
answer #2
·
answered by STILL standing 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Winning has been defined as getting Iraq to the point that it can sustain itself and defend itself without US assistance. It's debatable if that can be done, and if so how or when; but the President and his staff have explained this too many times for any informed citizen not to know what the goal is.
Technically the war against Hussein was over some time ago; but winning the peace is both far more difficult and far more important.
Perhaps people should not confuse 'winning the war' with 'whining the war' - going somewhere besides CNN would help.
2006-12-15 12:38:08
·
answer #3
·
answered by dukefenton 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
When everybody does as he tells them and thats never going to happen. He can't stay there for ever and when he leaves another war lord will move in and take over. They have a different life style and you can't force something on somebody for their own c=good if they don't want it. Their battles or not ours and we've got to learn to stop interfering in other countries affairs.
I don't like Saddam the cruel dictator but he was not the enemy, Bin Ladin hiding in Pakistan are the enemies. They never had the guts to stay on his tale and go into Pakistan after him so they used Saddam as a sidetrack to cover up their failure to get the real enrmy. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and like you say they took the regime down and they are still there. A terrible waste of lives over nothing. Fight your real enemies. The Americans are getting as bad as the Russians. We're invading for your own good then you can't get them out of there. Viet Nam here we go again. They never learned anything from that debacle.
2006-12-15 12:49:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by robert m 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Condi explicitly said they were not into 'nation building'. They were hoping to sell out to big reconstruction companies, but all the violence has forced a lot of them out.
It's a shame, because until Bush can be more specific, people in iraq are going to assume that they're the enemies in bush's war.
2006-12-15 12:42:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I don't know. He is very confusing,,,
Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." -- George W. Bush, May 1, 2003
"It's bad in Iraq." -- George W. Bush, December 7, 2006
2006-12-15 12:39:10
·
answer #6
·
answered by Sean 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
Winning means having who the oil companies want in power to remain in power..anyone who believes different does not understand Bush at all.
2006-12-15 12:37:26
·
answer #7
·
answered by dstr 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Winning to Bush means making a profit.
2006-12-15 12:34:17
·
answer #8
·
answered by Darth Vader 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
Like most liberals, you're quite confused on this subject because your intense dislike of the President prevents you from thinking clearly.
The "war" is the war on global terror, specifically al Qaeda and similar groups.
Iraq can be considered a "battle field" of that greater war. (Contrary to what libs accuse the President with, we did not invaded Iraq as a response to 9/11 but as a response to terrorism, which was the cause of 9/11.)
You're quite opinionated on these boards, but you have no grasp of the basics.
_________
1. I'm not obsessed with you because you have nothing to offer me.
2. I explained what the "war" meant above, so NO, the war has not been "won."
3. Part of the mission in invading Iraq was overthrowing Saddam's regime, in part because of his contributions to global terror. Saddam is currently in jail so that mission has been accomplished.
4. We are not "building" a nation so much as assisting it in building a democracy, which millions of voting Iraqis support.
5. This is still a war because Muslim extremists continue to insist on murdering innocent civilians. Why? They believe that the Quran tells them to spread Islam by any means necessary.
6. The new objective are to get Iraq on its feet and running things on their own. The bigger objective is to shut down terror cells by killing its members.
You should have know this stuff years ago. MTV isn't a good source of info.
___________
Seriously, did you attend public schools?
1. You did NOT ask for a response to Bush's words.
2. When you asked "What does Bush mean by winning this war" didn't you think you were going to get someone's opinion? Or did you think I was going to get on the phone and call W. myself and interview him?
If you didn't want an opinion, you should have said so.
2006-12-15 12:37:44
·
answer #9
·
answered by C = JD 5
·
3⤊
6⤋
I think the plan has been to provide something of a police force while Iraqis stablilize their government.
I think Mr. Bush is referring to the war on terror, more vague.
I personally believe that radical Islam is an ideology which must be fought, and beaten so badly, as to quiet them down. Of course it is ridiculous to assume you can rid one of their beliefs, but you can make them question their beliefs by fighting them.
Ultimately, radical Islam should be destroyed, whatever it takes.
I do not agree that we "created terrorists" by going into Iraq. That is nonsense. I am pro-life, yet no amount of force could make me bomb an abortion clinic.
2006-12-15 12:37:26
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 7
·
2⤊
5⤋