Give me an HONEST answer.
Yes - I know you don't like me - get over yourself and JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION...
2007-01-09 11:57:50 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
What constitutes winning this war? If winning the war means destroying a culture to force our value system and democracy on them at gunpoint, then I will be sad. If winning the war means they will be responsible for their own destiny, free to make their own laws and celebrate their culture without our further interference, then I will be happy.
With the building of a new $600 million, 21 building U.S. embassy, expected upcoming troop escalations, and an expected heavy military presence until at least 2010, we seem to be leaning toward the former, not the latter.
I want Iraq to succeed. They cannot do that with us "calling the shots". At what point will the war be won? When they start leading and we stop forcing them to follow. I hope that day comes soon.
If, on the other hand, you are speaking in general about the "war on terror", of course I will be happy if we win. Unfortunately, it is impossible to win a war on something that we, ourselves, engage in unless we cease engaging in it.
As an aside, I like you, I just don't agree with you most of the time...
2007-01-09 15:16:37 · answer #1 · answered by john_stolworthy 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Winning, in the case of Iraq, would mean having successfully installed a friendly regime in another part of the world. That could be good for the US. But let's be honest. The world doesn't belong to the US. We aren't supposed to play police to the world. Who cracks down on us when we do the wrong thing? How would we like that? We wouldn't.
Winning in Iraq would also mean having successfully quelled a civil war there. That would be a great thing. But again 1) I don't believe it's worth American lives in exchange for Iraqi lives, which is what this amounts to, and 2) the way we will effect a resolution to this civil problem is probably by killing that number of Iraqis who don't kill each other. --Yes, there will be peace in the valley... when no living native is left in Iraq. Iraq is cleaving into two factions that are sworn enemies. A realistic war policy would acknowledge the complexity of the problem, and leave.
2007-01-09 23:11:11 · answer #2 · answered by Johnny Corndrink 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is interesting reading the definition of winning. Yes at the moment it is going into Civil war. (There is nothing CIVIL about civil war)
Is it possible that the insurgents stood between the Sunnies & the Shea's then shoot both directions?
If the Iraqis truly wanted the coalition out it would take about a year and a half of peace. After about a year of peace with the locals investing in their own area the coalition would conclude that the local government was in control. Then IF the locals voted the coalition to leave it would take another 6 months for them to return home. Then if the local wished to do to their country what Lebanon & Yugoslavia did to theirs the coalition couldn't return in time to stop them.
The Iraqis proved they could fight & it was shown in the movie Lawrence of Arabia. Now is time for them to show they have gotten past the end of the movie & show they can work together for the good of all. At the end of the movie they just showed how tribal they were/are!
Today the 1st world's press is just the terrorist's 5th column.
2007-01-09 12:39:40 · answer #3 · answered by viablerenewables 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Win what war???
Winning the war on terror means Gov has total control even over its own people... So NO winning the war on terror = my free will gone.
Winning the war in Iraq... If we could win in a way where no one else dies and all partys involved get a compromise they will be happy with sure Id be happy... The chances of that happening are less then the average chance of me walking through a wall scientists say if I try for long enoth it just might happen but the chances of it happening in my life time are pretty much 0 repeating forever with a one after it.
2007-01-09 12:40:06 · answer #4 · answered by magpiesmn 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
war on terror... or Iraq war? they are two very different things... and the war on terror will last much longer than the war in Iraq... either way it goes...
but, I assume you're talking about Iraq...
what is "winning" exactly?
that's the problem... there don't seem to be clear goals...
a "stable government" maybe?... there's probably going to be violence for the next 50 years of some sort between sunnis and shites... so, good luck with that...
everything else seems to be pretty much solved... saddam's dead... they have elections... they have a trained military...
there are some terrorists running around... but the last U.S. government estimate I saw was under 2,000 in the country... there are probably more than that in the U.S. right now.... unfortunately... and there will always be some...
but of couse I'll be happy... this is a pretty silly question if you ask me...
2007-01-09 12:13:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
properly, i'm no longer a liberal, yet I disapprove of ways Bush has mismanaged this war. that's confusing to no longer dislike him whilst he has been a failure and brought about plenty divisiveness in this usa. His failures have on no account made me chuffed, that's 0.5 the component. i might opt to work out a potential answer for Iraq, no remember which camp it comes from. i do no longer dislike Bush because of the fact he's a Republican, or a conservative. I surely have voted normally interior the previous for Republicans. i do no longer care who straightens out this chaos in Iraq, as long as somebody does. however the fad seems to coach it purely isn't George Bush. i think of that 0.5 the concern with conservatives alongside with your self having this impact is which you proceed believing that's purely liberals who're protesting this war. it is not. that's many moderates and conservatives as properly. you don't get to under a 25% approval score on the war devoid of moderates and conservatives dissenting. except you opt to have faith that seventy 5% of people are liberals.
2016-10-06 22:09:56 · answer #6 · answered by kuhlmann 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This cannot be won. We went into a country under false pretenses and sparked a civil war with our presence. The only winners are those who are going to profit financially. All sides have suffered casualties and for no justifiable reason. And this is not a popularity contest, get over yourself.
2007-01-09 13:48:48 · answer #7 · answered by Hillaryforpresident 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
How about you get over it and realize that we lost. I am sad for the people of Iraq who were killed or displaced, however, I am glad that we lost, because it proves that Bush is a failure and will go down as the worst president ever. Also, the republican party will not recover from the mess they created with Bush unitl 20-30 years from now. So, get ready for a liberal democrat dominated world. A great world it will be.
2007-01-09 12:08:07 · answer #8 · answered by baseb11 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
The war is over. We won. Now we are just babysitting because new Iraqi government is too incompetent to get a handle on the situation. Until they can handle the chaos on their own, every US troop in a uniform is target practice for the "bad guys"
2007-01-09 12:07:42 · answer #9 · answered by three6ty 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Neither, it was never the USA's responsibility to effect a regime change in Iraq, the US military is for the defense of the USA, not for installing the government of our choice in foreign countries.
2007-01-09 12:09:01 · answer #10 · answered by Nick F 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋