Liberals, what exactly is wrong with Bush wanting to WIN the Iraq war?

Question

Whats so bad about it? Sending 20,000 more troops to WIN the war.

Answer 1

Because if we win, the U.S. and the President won't look bad, and we can't have that.

Answer 2

He has gone about the Iraq war the wrong way for many years. he surrounded himself with idiots who did not have a clue.He vilified the intelligent people who offered him good advice and basically said anyone who does not agree with me take a hike. He was told his plan would not work, he was told he was sending too few troops. He and Rumsfeld were told alike. They ignored these warnings. Bush was told putting Rumsfeld in his position was a big mistake and he did it anyway. He did it because Rumsfeld told him what he wanted to hear. Rumsfeld finally admitted his mistakes. If he would have admitted them a week earlier and stepped down I guarantee the Republicans would still be in charge of Congress today. Bush failed in asking for his resignation, another horrible mistake. What in the world could make anyone believe that any decision this president makes with regards to the war in Iraq will work. The 20k troops are too little too late. They should have been there from the word go. BEFORE things got out of hand. We have an idiot in the president's office surrounded by more idiots offering him advice.

Answer 3

You are so funny!

This war is lost for good. The only chance to (maybe) reverse the situation would be to send 10 times more troops, at least, which is not feasible (yes, that would be about one and a half million troops!)

140,000 troops already there; add 21,500: that's 161,500.
It's similar to having 16 guys instead of 14 to do the same job: does not make a big difference, does it?

It does not even replace the 22,800 American troops who have been injured!!! Not mentioning the 3,000 who are dead and those jailed for theirs crimes...

Do you remember this Iraqi "Minister of Information" who, at the begining of the war, said the American troops would be defeated. We all laughed at him. Even him did not believe what he was saying. All we can see now is that... he was actually right!

Answer 4

There is nothing wrong with "winning"....it just needs to get resolved & the troops need to come home. I know several guys over there & they hate it, but they're doing their job. I'm sure there are "feel good" stories, all I know is they don't trust the children and they can't shop in any of the stores (for obvious reasons, the shop owners don't want their stores car bombed) and they are shot at/bombed all of the time when out on patrol. I think the question is, are strides being made & will sending more troops help or not? God Bless the Troops!

Answer 5

I am probably the rare liberal who thinks we should not leave but add enough troops to get stability and get it right.

I was against the war from day one, but now that we are there I think that if we leave now we are setting up a stronger foothold for an anti-American/theocracy.

My heart aches for those who have lost their lives and I am sorry we ever went there in the first place, but now I think we should not just give up and leave them to the mess we made. Then again I've heard they want us out, but then I have heard they want us to stay. It really is over my head, these are just my thoughts.

Answer 6

Because 20,000 won't do it. And there is nothing wrong with winning the war. But the war isn't against Iraq. and Bush doesn't have the brains to figure out that terrorism is a tactic and not a person.
You have to take the fight to the terrorist not wait till they come to you. If he really wanted to win the war against "terrorism", he would go after them. Why hasn't Bin Laden been captured or killed? We have been in Iraq for more than three years. Bush has it planned to go on for years. If you want to get rid of terrorists, go after them.

Answer 7

Nothing wrong with winning a war, though I'm not much of a liberal according to liberals - I'm a flaming pinko according to conservatives - but I think their point isn't that winning is a bad thing, but that which is being defined as 'winning' is flawed and even if it weren't, committing even more troops to the situation helps no one.

Answer 8

Cause this war can't be won. Because those are 20,000 PEOPLE you're talking about, not to mention the Iraqi's who are being killed. Remember, there were other wars that couldn't be won. And how many lives did our nation have to waste just to realize that? And for what? What is your obsession with WINNING? What would winning even mean?

Answer 9

if you think its easy why dont you go to iraq and fight? didnt u hear about vietnam when u grew up winning wars with that type of objective is impossible if the people of the nation ur fighting in hate ur army because of the injustice ur army did to them

Answer 10

It flies in the face of everything they said was wrong and if we win, then they loose seats and control of Congress next election and for President in 2008. they want us to loose so very bad, they are willing and are sabotaging our strategy.

In Viet Nam, the media and Congress caused us to loose, not the North, not China or Russia, but our OWN CONGRESS TRIED TO RUN THE SHOW BY REMOTE CONTROL!!!


Stay the course, kill terrorists and get the hell out of there.

Answer 11

I dont think I am a liberal (I'm not sure what that is lol) but I just think it is sad to be at war all the time when it seems so impossible to win. I mean you realize that these muslims WANT to die in combat? because they think they will go to heaven for it (odd i know) and also the draft scares me like that other guy said