English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-01-23 05:11:40 · 11 answers · asked by bettysdad 5 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

11 answers

Why do the Democrats and the French admit defeat before the fighting ever starts?

2007-01-23 05:16:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

Eventually, we do what we should have done in the first place. We pull out and see who rules the nation when the dust settles.

We won the fight, but one country cannot force another country to be governed in a certain way without a willingness to be ruthless. That's how the Nazi's and the Russians did it. But I pray we never do that.

The REAL problem in Iraq is that we didn't take care of business and go home in the first place. That's what a military is for. Kicking *** and going home after. Not this stupid anti-training the idiots in Washington think it's for.

Make no mistake, we won the war, easily. What we are going to lose is the occupation.
We should have went home right after the "mission accomplished" speech. Let the Iraqis fight it out.

BTW, how would you answer this question? What would you have Bush do? Or do you just think it's cool to watch him mess up?

2007-01-24 19:46:54 · answer #2 · answered by deangowarrior 2 · 1 0

He will then ask for more money to keep the effort going. Bush will no doubt push to keep the war going on so he has a reason to author emergency legislation to disrupt the 2008 elections, and remain in power as Commander in Chief. Stay the Course policy will remain intact, I fear. We will be there indefinitely.
Response to Bubba: Over 3,060 troops have died from fighting. How can you even say that the fight hasn't even started yet. Are you really that thick? You are so disrespectful of those who have died in this effort. It is an attitude such as yours that more and more disapprove of this questionable war.

2007-01-23 19:57:08 · answer #3 · answered by Schona 6 · 1 0

Well lets see what has happened so far ....
a report in the Iraqi newspaper al Sabah reported : Abu Ayyub al Masri, the head of al Qaida in Iraq, has ordered a withdrawal to Diyala province, north and east of Baghdad. Mr. al Masri's evacuation order said that remaining in Baghdad is a no-win situation for al Qaida, because the Fallujah campaign demonstrating the Americans have learned how to prevail in house to house fighting.
Second, the radical cleric Moqtada al Sadr, whose Iranian-subsidized militia, the Mahdi army,and is responsible for most of the assaults on Sunni civilians in Iraq, is lowering his profile.
Mahdi army militia members have stopped wearing their black uniforms, hidden their weapons and abandoned their checkpoints in an apparent effort to lower their profile in Baghdad in advance of the arrival of U.S. reinforcements," wrote Leila Fadel and Zaineb Obeid of the McClatchy Newspapers Jan. 13.
Third, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki is putting more distance between himself and al Sad.
Last Friday al Sadr ordered the 30 lawmakers and six cabinet ministers he controls to end the boycott of the government he ordered two months ago. AP writer Steven Hurst described this Monday as "a desperate bid to fend off an all out American offensive."
Mr. Maliki consented to the arrest that same day of Abdul Hadi al Durraji, al Sadr's media director in Baghdad. Mr. Sadr said Saturday some 400 of his supporters have been arrested in recent days.


Heard any of this in the Liberal media ???? You can easily look it up just search for the papers.. Now why doesn't the main stream media think this is news ???

2007-01-23 13:40:42 · answer #4 · answered by bereal1 6 · 0 0

Blame the Generals. Because the Texas Heir National Guard has never lost a war, the Texxon Cowboy is not used to dealing with losers, officers who are so low-class that they couldn't even get their Daddies to get them out of having to serve on active duty. Smirking at these peasants, President Paris W. Hilton can proudly declare that the Iraq disaster-in-the-desert was not his fault at all.

After all, who was President when these Generals got their first stars? Clinton! CLINTON, CLINTON, CLINTON!!! As with 9/11, which we all know was all Cinton's fault, Americans who haven't been brainwashed by our Communist media know that Clinton is behind every failure our Divine Dubya gets blamed for. Be afraid, America, be very afraid!

Our Mumbling Messiah is being crucified, just like his brother, Je$u$, was. Clinton, the anti-Christ, fixed it so our Heirguard Hero would have only losers and morons as Generals. Our leader's brilliant Shock and Awe has turned into Snap, Crackle, and Pop--all because of the Al Qaida-financed Democrat Party. Now that we know who our real enemies are, the Iraqi War will become easy and fun, just like a fraternity party, led by a fraternity drunk.

2007-01-23 13:31:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

You mean if Bush's surge fails. Part of it succeeding depends on the Iraqis to get their military and police in shape, and for them to calm the violent government backed militias. Our soldiers can't make that happen. We can't force democracy and peace on them, we can only prevent violence where possible.

2007-01-23 13:18:23 · answer #6 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1 1

You mean Bush's 4th surge.

2007-01-23 13:58:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Then it becomes a problem for the next president of the United States.

2007-01-23 13:35:22 · answer #8 · answered by MishMash [I am not one of your fans] 7 · 0 0

More business for body bag producers.

2007-01-23 13:51:20 · answer #9 · answered by Rja 5 · 1 0

Watch TV program "24"...
The war comes over here if we don't fight it over there...

2007-01-23 13:19:39 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers