2007-01-06 11:57:07 · 14 answers · asked by qncyguy21 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
necessary changes to assure victory in a war that we are winning? since when in human hstory do combatants make drastic changes when they are winning?
2007-01-06 12:09:28 · update #1
those of you who know how to read, please be familiar with the defintion of Quagmire, before you yap the wind flap!
2007-01-06 12:26:12 · update #2
steelgrave, referring to it as a civil war, and an illegal war, are viewing in in two different lights. which both can be very sound statments along with it being a quagmire.
none of those statements change how sound the premise of the other is. I think those brave men and women would be more uplifted to find out they are coming home don't you??
you are a fledgling spinster, listen to rush a bit more, and you might become a full fledged master!
2007-01-06 12:32:35 · update #3
Oh it's always been planned to be a quagmire. Bush needs a reason to keep US troops in the Mideast forever because new problems always arise in the Mideast and it keeps the war on terror going which helps keep Republicans, like me, in power.
2007-01-06 12:01:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Wait a minute last week it was a civil war, before that it was an illegal war, now its a quagmire again lets pick an adjective and stick with it huh. You people have been saying it is a quagmire since it started why is it coming backup again. I'm sure those brave men and women over there fighting for your right to question their actions are uplifted by your continued support.
Edited. I have never listened to Rush Limbaugh in my life you bigoted little weasel. And a vast majority of our soldiers over there don't want to come home until the job is done, don't apply your cowardice to them.
2007-01-06 20:23:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, Bush says that we are neither winning or losing - that sounds like a quagmire to me.
2007-01-06 20:04:51 · answer #3 · answered by James T 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It has been 3 000 boys ago.and what bothers me the most is as soon as we leave ,it all goes back to where it was before with a new saddam.the Iraqi's don't have the backbone to stand up against the insurgency on their own.I'll be happy to be proven wrong some day.
2007-01-06 20:04:10 · answer #4 · answered by Shark 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, it's only unofficially a quagmire.
I don't think it will be an official quagmire until 2008 and a new President
2007-01-06 19:58:31 · answer #5 · answered by SteveT 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Depends on the official definition of a quagmire. Lacking that, I'd call it one helluva mess.
2007-01-06 19:59:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
No, but it is at that point where we can make the neccessary changes to assure victory, or make it a complete waste and put our future at grave risk.
2007-01-06 20:00:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
wasn't that established the day that rooster strutted on that carrier and declared an end to the war?
2007-01-06 20:04:47 · answer #8 · answered by goddess 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Unequivocally yes.
2007-01-06 19:58:00 · answer #9 · answered by TurnMeOut 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋
its already been a quagmire "giggidy giggidy!"
2007-01-06 19:58:58 · answer #10 · answered by 100% Español 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋