The ineffectiveness of the "course" is what's angering most!
How much longer should this "course" take?
Did the military strategist really not factor in insurgents?
Are 21,000 troops really going to be enough to effect a change?
2007-01-20 13:02:17 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
In World War 2, The United States was fighting for survival. The enemy was clearly defined. For the country it was do or die. The terms of engagement were totally different. If the attitude of the government and the terms of engagement were as they are now The United States would have lost the war. Even so, it was closer than led to believe.
There were also other factors which could most likely be summed as a since of unity and pride.
Over half century and several wars later, none of which we can truthfully attest to a win, the unity and pride are non-existant. The reason is because we have not been fighting for our freedom. We have been fighting for someone elses freedom who would not know what to do if they had it. They don't even want it. What is the Deal? I think it would be a step in the right direction if our government quit playing God. The Government is not effective at this and is really not very good at play acting.
How much longer depends on the terms of engagement.
I don't beleive the military stratigest factored any thing into the war. I think that the only thing factored was how much money it would make for a select few.
21,000 troops? Terms of engagement the same. Won't make much difference.
In saying what I have, I want to make it perfectlly clear that in no way am I downgrading our troops. They are the finest of the fine. I think it is an unforgivable sin to send them to war and shoot them in the back. May God bless each and every one of them.
2007-01-20 15:23:08 · answer #1 · answered by scallywag 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did you hear the presidents speach at the start of the war? He said it could take years, and sometimes it would be up and sometimes down. Unlike any other war we ever fought we aren't fighting an enemy we can recognize easily and much of the fighting is behind the scenes. Whats WWII got to do with this war??? A totally different war that can't be compared. I hope you don't really think this will be the last war you'll have to live thru.
2007-01-20 21:32:09 · answer #2 · answered by Brianne 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes and how distressing. Bush's scare tactic to gain support for his "surge" in troop levels now -- warning of the dire consequences of failure -- confirms that he never considered the possibility before deciding to invade Iraq. I wish that democrats and republicans in both houses would sign a joint resolution to halt all ancillary Pentagon spending until the war in Iraq is resolved and our troops are at home. None who support such as resolution could be accused of failing to supporting our troops. Who could not agree to making an end to this war the number one top priority.
Other resolutions have distinctions without difference, are just symbolic, or they generate a constitutional confrontation. Let's all keep focus on ending the war that Bush started and doesn't know how to end. Shame on him for not having paid attention to experts who did warn against insurgency and for disregarding military advice about troop levels then and now. Shame on us for permitting him to continue.
2007-01-20 21:20:28 · answer #3 · answered by murphy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, we occupied Germany during WWII and we STILL HAVE military bases in Germany, so your very question is flawed.
In fact, there wouldn't have BEEN a WWII if the victors of "War to end all wars" (WWI) had finished their jobs instead of dropping the ball and allowing Hitler to be able to come to power.
2007-01-20 22:59:39 · answer #4 · answered by gbrannan 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
But in WW II the total number of American deaths is 291,557. To date their is 3026 American deaths in the Iraq war. Pretty hard to compare huh?
I still would like to know what the plan that democrats would do, all they say is pull out and run. Maybe their daddys should have done that.
2007-01-20 21:17:37 · answer #5 · answered by HAGAR!!! 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Those Iraq uniformed soldiers have been eluding us for so long, good thing it is not like an insurgency which lasts for decades.
2007-01-20 21:10:56 · answer #6 · answered by animalmother 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately many of our politicians are more interested in getting their party in power and undermining the current administration even at the cost of the lives of our brave soldiers fighting.
2007-01-20 21:17:10 · answer #7 · answered by Iknowthisone 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
True enough. Makes it sound more like Vietnam.
We should be taking an extremely aggressive stance. Rooting out terrorists wherever we find them and treating them mercilessly.
2007-01-20 21:09:12 · answer #8 · answered by WJ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not true. We occupied Japan & Germany far longer than we've been in Iraq.
2007-01-20 22:31:59 · answer #9 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As long as we keep fighting a "politically correct" war people are going to be disappointed no matter which side they're on.
I Cr 13;8a
2007-01-20 21:06:33 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋