Don't you think a decisive VICTORY in Iraq will serve us better at ending terrorism than pulling a "cut & run?

Question

We can do a better job of negociating with terrorists from a position of strength - not weakness.

They will see us as weak if we cut & run.

Answer 1

in response to tonalc...victory is if the enemy surrenders or dies,thats what victory is.
Now a decisive victory will make terrorists think twice,and it will send a message to not only terrorists,but the people whom think we should feel guilty and sorry for our behavior,as we shouldnt feel any of these ways

Answer 2

First what kind of VICTORY are you talking about, I mean what do Americans wants to accomplish in Iraq to say that they have victory. Let me tell you one thing, US goverment right now doesnt know why they are in Iraq and that is why they are stuck.
No body can justify killing more than 3000 american soldiers, and as well more than 10000 iraqis. In addition, why do you think war in Iraq will end terrorism in the world, US is attacking iraq just because Saddam attacked Israel in the 90's and to get all the oil that is there, and if you dont believe me go ask Bush himself.
I am surprised why the US media always talk about what "terrorists" did rather than speaking of why they did it.
So I think the best solution for US gov. now is to pull out from Iraq and take care of their own business then there will be no "terrorism"

Answer 3

There is no negoticing with terrorist!! If that's the case then we would have had Ben Ladin when the Saudi's wanted to hand him over to the President Bush right after 9/11!
A victory would be wonderful! It would be better then the cut and run! Now with that said how long should we stay in Iraq?? Do you want to send your children and grand children into the war!
The Problem with this war is it's been over three years and there is no end in sight!

Answer 4

First of all, Washington DC has attacked Iraq with no probable cause. The arguments of the then Secretary of State Mr. Powell gave in UN Security Council were not convincing, even though he is himself a brilliant strategist.
Second, the aim of war was to disarm Saddam Hussein. This was not achieved. Another probable aim in any war is to break moreale of enemy and his commitment to resist (according to Von Clausewitz) - this also has not been achieved.
Third, United States think that they can help Middle East to grab democracy when US in fact promotes liberal democracy which exists only in America and cannot be forced upon to Muslims, who do not believe the Law to originate from people, to contrary - Muslims believe the Law is given by God and spreading gay marriage, strip bars and brothels and AIDS is not welcome.
Fourth, comes from the third point - By taking such erratic steps Americans alienate the world from them and just radicalize the people who simply want to kill Americans jsut because they are not us. The Americans live in their own world where the news about Tyrese Gibson punching his girlfriend are more important than the drought and famine in Afghanistan or "Collateral damages" in south Afghanistan in Oct 2006 e.g. and Iraq every day.
And now , my dear American friends you want to talk about decisive victory in Iraq? What a sacrilege! Washnigton has started this mess dividing people into three groups - Shia, Kurds and Sunnis without even knowing what are their historical background and real problems.
America will never negotiate with terrorists simply because terrorists will not. They will come and kill them. All - with Paris Hilton-fans and Trigger-happy cowboys from Blackwater Corp. who were burnt alive and mutilated in Iraq. Think about it. Why Americans are hated all over the world? Because of your semi-literated leadership, having fancy ideas and sacrificing own people for own needs and for Franklin 100 portraits as well.

Answer 5

Two points:

1. Define victory in Iraq. What constitutes victory?

2. One cannot ever, ever negotiate with terrorists.

We may occupy Iraq for many years. We may have to prop up a series of corrupt and splintered governments. We will lose many more troops.

Now, it might be necessary.

Answer 6

I'm sure it will, and there are also things that would have served us (much) better at ending terrorism instead of ithe invasion of Iraq.

and what does "decisive victory" mean? if we have to commit all of our forces for an extended period of time to achieve this, obviously it would have been better to use our forces more efficiently instead

Answer 7

first you have to figure out what the cause is before you can have a victory, don't you? afterall, it keeps changing month by month. have they finally settled on a reason that they are happy with, and will keep our troops in Iraq for a long long time?? I haven't heard!

Answer 8

You've seen way too many old westerns.

This is like a thief coming into someone's home, killing the people who live there, stealing their valuables and then thinking to himself... "If I cut and run now, people will never realize the good I could have done here"

Answer 9

I don't think I agree with you. "We" aren't going to end terrorism, see Timothy McVeigh. I'm sorry but please explain to me how this mess in Iraq is beating "global terrorism." Let's get our troops out, we've lost enough, too many. Time to come home, let Iraq straighten out their country, we can't do it for them. Man what a mess we have created.

Answer 10

The problem is nobody, even Bush, has been able to define what "victory" means.

First it was control Baghdad.
Then it was topple Hussein.
Then it was find Hussein.
Then it was to hold elections.
Then it was to train the troops.
Now? Who knows?

Answer 11

"Decisive victory", huh?

You better call W and tell him how to achieve that. Seems he's had some problems in that area.