Some claim that leaving "before the job is done" will mean 3000 soldiers "died for nothing". So do we send more troops and then more troops until we end up with 30,000 deaths? And is there any guarantee of Victory?
2006-12-18 13:00:24 · 15 answers · asked by TruBlevr 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
They died fighting for America and your ability to sit at your desk goofing off on YA like I'm doing. You DECIDE how to remember them. If you decide they died for nothing, shame on you. I for one honor them and their sacrifice. Their's is a much more difficult job than soldiers had in earlier wars in our history.
One thing I agree with is that no real military objective can be achieved at this point. The actual war was won rather quickly and painlessly. This reconstruction stuff is failing.
2006-12-18 13:12:41 · answer #1 · answered by Griff 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is no guarantee of anything, but what most fail to realize is that the US has never pulled out of any country that it has fought ie. Vietnam we are still there because we feel respondsible to "clean up" so will everybody ever come home no we always will keep a level of presence there and its sad these wars over commoditys. Vet active 1997-2000
2006-12-18 13:13:28 · answer #2 · answered by ? 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's an excellent question. It's a lose-lose situation that we never should have entered in the first place. The job will never be done, you cannot have a democracy in a country with so many different ethnic tribes wanting so many different things, and being used to living in a certain way, and having an invading force trying to change that. No one will ever be completely happy, and sometimes I wonder if they would have been better off if Sadaam had been allowed to continue as he was. At least then there was no civil unrest.
2006-12-18 13:11:53 · answer #3 · answered by redrancherogirl 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They died for no longer something, by using fact they died for an pointless conflict. First Bush instructed us Saddam has WMD's.... We went there, there have been none. Then he comes up with yet one extra reason, that it relatively is for Iraqi freedom.. even nonetheless it hasn't gotten to any extent further useful nonetheless. the squaddies are brave, specific, yet their deaths have been for no longer something and all by using fact Bush made a heck of a dumb selection.
2016-10-15 05:10:14 · answer #4 · answered by dudik 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What's worse besides the cut and run is to continue trying to win by fighting a limited war. We never would have won WW2 like that. And we will never win this one that way either. Just like we didn't win in Vietnam or Korea trying to conduct limited warfare.
2006-12-18 13:26:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with Hillary on that what is the use in drizzling a few more troops in just to fill in for the ones already killed without a comprehensive plan for change.
2006-12-18 13:09:29 · answer #6 · answered by Enigma 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
America has a sad choice. ( I learned this from Vietnam ) Leave now with 3,000 dead and lose the war "OR" Leave Iraq in 10 years with 30,000 dead and lose the war. It's the USA choice. Source? Me.....6 years active from 1969 to 1975 .
2006-12-18 13:11:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
whats worse then 3000 U.S. troops dying is 6000 US troops dying unnecessarily - which is what we're on the path to.
2006-12-18 15:39:52 · answer #8 · answered by writersbIock2006 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What's worse is when leader don't want to admit they were wrong or someone else had to do it for them.
Throughtout human history, poor people fight wars, the rich and wealthy don't
2006-12-18 14:09:53 · answer #9 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
More than 50,000 civilians dying in the name of enforced 'freedom'?
Karma.
x
2006-12-18 13:09:00 · answer #10 · answered by angelkarmachic 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋