And by "winning" I mean not leaving it so that it turns into a Fundamentalist Muslim theocracy within the year.
2007-01-21 08:00:50 · 12 answers · asked by tlakkamond 4 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Winning at this point would be a dream come true. If the influx of 20 billion dollars and 20,000 more troops can't do it. I don't see it happening. I think we should cut our losses and let the people of Iraq start handling there own problems. Vietnam didn't work out to well for the US, I don't see this having any different of an outcome.
2007-01-21 11:27:16 · answer #1 · answered by InDyBuD2002 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think there's a clear-cut "winner" in this case. When the U.S. pulls out and leaves Iraq to run on its own, if they can live in peace and be organized, then I'd say that Iraq is the one that won. If the U.S. pulls out and the country falls apart, the issues run deeper than what the U.S. was trying to help with. We've made great progress in the past 2 years, regardless of anyone you talk to, but the responsibility to rebuild Iraq lies within Iraq. There's only so much we can do.
2007-01-21 08:10:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree with Susan M. The wars been won, its the occupation that's a *****. What people fail to realize is that the fighting going on now is more a kin to a bunch of street gangs fighting over turf. Ya know come to think of it we don't do that great of a job containing gangs right here at home.
2007-01-21 10:45:20 · answer #3 · answered by envirocowboy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it's possible for anyone to "win" this. There was no real plan or goal when we went, so there's really nothing to "win". Based on your definition of winning, the chances are 50/50. It all depends on what the Iraqi people want.
2007-01-21 11:30:08 · answer #4 · answered by HarmNone 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
u . s . of america want to invade more suitable countries so their weapon manufactures can earn more suitable money.. and iraq look loved a good target, small, undesirable, and defenseless. the perfect and straightforward target for a bully. North korea will in good structure properly for u . s .$$ next target.. Dont agreed with me?? Why is it united states the cowarded bully dare no longer invade russia?? Wasnt russia a more suitable chance to the so noted as "american freedom"?? becos russian is analogous length loved u . s .$$, and bully will purely picked on someone smaller.
2016-10-15 21:48:59 · answer #5 · answered by jakiela 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that the original goals of removing Saddam and holding elections have been reached.
The more difficult problem that has yet to be resolved: How to get these groups of people to accept themselves and each other as fellow "Iraqis". I think that many in the Middle East identify themselves differently than westerners do. They don't identify themselves by country by by ethnicity or tribal allegiances.
2007-01-21 08:15:12 · answer #6 · answered by Susan M 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
for one thing 'we went there as peace keepers;after bush said there was bombs of mass destruction;which was false...we need to get our people home and away from all the madness,,they have been fighting over things for millions of years and it;s not going to ever stop;unless the world comes to an end,,,,and with Iran and their weapons of mass destruction;and the nut in Korea the world might get nuked....and prez bush wood be safe in the bomb shelter at the white house 'while the human race disappears like the dinosaurs
2007-01-21 08:14:17 · answer #7 · answered by Cami lives 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You must have missed the "Mission Accomplished" photo op aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.
Our hearts filled with pride....it was beautiful.
2007-01-21 08:10:47 · answer #8 · answered by Jack 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
USA LOST THAT WAR AND WILL NEVER WIN ANOTHER.IN WAR NO ONE WINS ALL CHOOSE TO LOOSE THE CHANCE TO DANCE IN WORLD THAT HAS PEACE ON EARTH.
2007-01-21 10:03:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely none, it is another viet nam
2007-01-21 09:18:00 · answer #10 · answered by xyz 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋