I'm not asking if we should be there. I'm asking if you were the grand high poobah of the world, and could make such things happen, would the US emerge victorious?
By victory, I mean establishing a functional, democratic government in Baghdad with no ties to terrorists or territorial ambitions at the expense of its neighbors.
2007-01-18 06:50:21 · 18 answers · asked by Rick N 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I must admit, I'm pleasantly surprised. I've played this game before with liberals, and usually they hem and haw about "imperialism" and the like...but they will usually stop short of answering in the affirmative.
As you can all see, there are a few prizewinners here who followed the pattern, though. *sigh*
2007-01-18 07:01:19 · update #1
Any intelligent bieing would want to see victory over defeat, which opens the question......Why do Libs want us to pull out in shame?
2007-01-18 06:56:03 · answer #1 · answered by PoliticallyIncorrect 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
sure. i'd like an end to the conflict that we are able to seem back on and say we did the sturdy for Iraq with as little mess and fee as lets. i opt for to seem back and say we were powerful and efficient, yet, i imagine it truly is too late now. i do not see how that would want to ensue, and that i do not see the way it would want to help us in the wider photo any better than pulling out might want to, inspite of if that did ensue. I do only not imagine it truly is plausible.
2016-11-25 01:44:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Win. Obviously. But what our Soldiers have NEVER been told is the definition of victory. Soldiers need a defined Endstate to know when they've done their job.
2007-01-18 06:56:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
nope... I have always hoped the United States would keep to its own and that if they do attack innocent people that those people form an insurgency and whip thier asses out (as is happening) just like in Vietnam
Ho Chi Minh outspmarted the fools in Washington... so will Al Sadr. The US don't get liberation struggles, insurgencies and combat in general... all they do is bomb and that won't win ever.
2007-01-18 06:56:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Sort of a no-brainer. Tell me, who do you know that would actually want the United States to lose? As for your thought of freedom, it seriously depends on what kind of people are elected. Few people know this, but Hitler and Ahmedinejad were elected.
2007-01-18 06:56:55 · answer #5 · answered by Huey Freeman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the cost of victory. Victory without costs may not be a sensible accomplishment. If they could do it on the cheap- great, but if it means borrowing our future out to china and suffering casualties and perhaps a pernament stationing in Iraq may not be in our best interests.
2007-01-18 06:55:20 · answer #6 · answered by trigunmarksman 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Absolutely!
2007-01-18 06:53:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but it'll never happen. Islam is a religion that dictates that a theocracy is to be their form of government. Unless they all convert to another religion, it will never happen; Islam is incompatible with democratic rule.
2007-01-18 06:57:18 · answer #8 · answered by jeffpsd 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That can be the only answer and only litmus test to define victory. Anything short of that is defeat.
2007-01-18 06:54:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Win is not an option.
In order to win anything you need to successfully attain predescribed goals. Like finish line or biggest fish.
Iraq has no obtainable goals.
GO big Red Go
2007-01-18 06:55:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋