Maybe more. Why?
2007-02-09 02:07:13 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Well, that's not so long really, though you may be thinking, "Oh my, hasn't it been dragging on for quite a long while now?," which suggests of course that it indeed has or you wouldn't be thinking it. That said, would any of us be at all suprised if the thing came to an end at virtually any moment? Imagine the lovely parades!
2007-02-09 03:13:22 · answer #1 · answered by squidb8becham 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
several reasons..
1. the enemy can not beat us in an open fight.. so they hide with the general population.. you cant shoot everyone.. so you basically have to run raids.. and check points and wait for them to mess up
2. the general public in the US wants a video game style tv show war.. we go in find the bad guys kill them all done in 30 minutes...
war isnt like that... some times it takes time to win.
3. a lot of mis information is out there.. or alot to do about nothing info.. like the fact that we only here about the number of America deaths. which is at or just below 3200.. while that number seems high.. it is lower than any war in history we have fought in.. and even the most conservitve numbers has the enemys deaths nearing 30,000 .
4. people dont think about what is going to happen when we leave the war not finished... which basically means. when the last US military person leaves Iraq.. the first terriorst will follow him the the US.
but then again you also have to consider with the open borders we have here.. and the making 21 million illegals legal. by bush and nancy polisk what number of them are terriorist,...
this war will not be over any time soon... you have to get past this generation of arabs.. that only know hate for women and anything other that what they know... once we get to the kids it may work out better.. but your looking at decades
2007-02-09 02:24:29 · answer #2 · answered by Larry M 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Because war is hell, and there is a reason you try to avoid it. More Americans have now been killed in the war on the ground in Iraq than died in the twin towers collapse.
My guess is that Bush Jr was misinformed and chose to go in guns blazing, expecting this "skirmish" to be similar to the one his dad had when they fought Iraq in Kuwait.
It is a hell of a lot easier to destroy platoons of Republican Guard on the ground in the open desert than having to go house to house in an urban setting and try to distinguish between a civilian and an insurgent.
Just as happened in Vietnam, you have an enemy that blends in with the other people in the area, then pops out to kill a few GIs, then goes back into hiding in with the rest of the people there.
The civilians are broken into two factions, those who want democracy and those who want to go back to the way it was. So effectively you have a civil war brewing with Americans in the middle. The crusade was doomed from the start.
To win this war, you need to convince the average Iraqi guy on the street that the US is not a foreign invader but rather there to help them. So far, they only know what the local militias, Al Qaida, and other foreign interests have told them about the west.
2007-02-09 02:20:01 · answer #3 · answered by SteveN 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Because military leaders really screwed up in the initial phases of the war.
Let me illustrate how.
1. A conventional military has never been able to fight well against aguerilla one. Examples include the Partisans vs. the Germans in Yugoslavia during World War II, The North Vietnamese vs. the U.S., the Afghans vs. the Soviets, and the Fedayeen Vs. the U.S. military today.
2. The U.S. military leaders thought the backbone of resistance would be the Republican Guard (a conventional force). Instead, it was the Fedayeen guerillas.
3. The U.S. violated a principle of warfare by being infexible to the objective. General Tommy Franks thought the objective would be Baghdad, and refused to slow the offensive even though troops were running into heavy resistance from irregulars.
4. Intelligence was very poor. Troops headed toward Samawah were told they would be parading through the streets. They ran into a hail of gunfire and RPGs.
5. Too much was taken from the Gulf War.
The Gulf War is one of the worst examples of a war to take tactical ideas from. The Iraqis tried to beat us at our own game with inferior troops, reconaissance capabilites and equipment. As such, it's not surprising that they got their butts kicked.
However, commanders tried to copy tactics that had worked in the previous war. Unfortunately for the troops performing them, the Iraqis hadn't been idle for the last 12 years. An Apache helicopter attack (which worked fantastically in the first Gulf War) blundered into a massive ambush. One helichopter was shot down, and the rest were damaged and forced to abort.
6. There weren't enough soldiers for a ground campaign. Colin Powell pushed for more soldiers, because he knew that there wouldn't be enough to handle the operations, but Donald Rumsfeld overruled him. The troop surge should have happened years ago.
All this points to deep seated problems in the military.
2007-02-09 04:25:42 · answer #4 · answered by Mitchell j 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
i do no longer think of that our persevered presence will help. it rather is not Japan and that is not any longer Germany. there is a lot condescension to the middle East right here in this board that's astounding. Europe did no longer combat the Muslims for 4 hundred years whilst they have been in Spain, this is carefully an exaggeration. you're saying "those human beings have fought because of the fact the Mongols" as though Europe's background isn't the two crammed with wars that far back? And ours- properly our background does not even bypass back that far! "they are raised from start to serve corrupt governments and taught a terrible form of a faith that asserts you may die on your God via killing others." consistent with probability the corrupt governments (a number of which we help- saudi arabia all people?) are one clarification why persons are mad, disgruntled, and carriers to radicalization? maximum Muslims do no longer heavily have self assurance in terrorism as a valid approach of combating.
2016-11-02 23:41:07 · answer #5 · answered by boddie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because we haven't killed all of the radical Muslim terrorists yet.
World Wars 1 and 2 raged for years before we got involved. We chose to be passive isolationists for much of both of those wars, and we engaged our enemies for what... 3 or 4 years in each one? World War II "ended" when we glassed Nagasaki and Hiroshima. It didn't end there, we still occupied enemy territory for many years, and we still have troops out there today.
We could end the conflict in Iraq, and we could end the nuclear threat from Iran with a few well-placed atomic or nuclear weapons, which I am all for, but our government doesn't want to take such an approach.
People crying injustice for prisoners of war are emboldening our enemies to keep fighting, because they know that eventually, we are going to buckle under liberal pressure to surrender. Once we surrender, they will come after us. It may take years, because they want to convert Europe first, since it's closest. Make no mistake. This is a battle for our way of life. This isn't about oil. This is about fighting them at a time and a place of our choosing, on their soil.
I don't want them here. You shouldn't either. When we surrender, they will be here, and we will be tortured, killed, or converted by whatever means necessary.
Pacifism and talking don't work against terrorists. How do you negotiate with a man that kills children?
2007-02-09 03:46:07 · answer #6 · answered by GSDJunkie 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well, insurgents are going in from other countries and murdering Iraqis. It seems like the right thing to do or would you rather let them all die for no reason at all? Maybe you'd like Saddam to come back from that fall when he broke his neck and take Iraq back over so he could murder the people instead of the insurgents?
If you'd join the military, you get a first hand look at why we are there. I've talked with many of the people who have been serving over there and they can't wait to get back there. Maybe I have too much of a heart for people from other countries but I think it's right that we should be there but then maybe you forgotten that in the beginning they were saying that it could take 5 to 10 years to get this over and done.
You'll have to excuse me but I need to go to the VA hospital for some ultrasound treatment. Oh that's right, you don't get free medical cause you haven't been in the military. So sorry.
2007-02-09 02:24:31 · answer #7 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
because it is serving Americas own selfish agenda and they are profiting from it everyday. War is money. Americas economy depends on that. But mostly some certain individuals and parties profit from this, and these are the people who holds the key to our government.
American Value:Money, Result = War
Looking for the most used search-words on Internet in the USA I noticed that very high scoring words were: 'money' and 'war'.
Not as high as sex, but very high.
Top search-words related to war: world war 2, civil war, war, world war 1, Vietnam war, Iraq war, dope war, war in Iraq, cold war, Korean war, world war, gulf war, war on drug, war on terrorism, total war, second world war, Mexican war.
Top search-words related to money: money love, make money, free money, cash money, easy money, money to loan, fast money, make money fast.
That was an eye-opener to understanding USA society, American values are focused on possession of money and its short history is filled with devastating wars.
It is nor really surprising, because most early immigrants were obsessed by 'a better life', and many of them ready to kill for it. Such people didn't leave Europe to find a more beautiful life, but to produce a more wealthy life. The value property is highly devoted in capitalist thinking. Nothing should prevent this goal; no Red Indians; no government; no Mexicans; no Germans; no communists; no Chinese; no Muslims.
When the USA doesn't change direction, that leaves to 2 options: (1) A world with only USA (total capitalism), (2) a world without USA (total war).
I don't think 1 is acceptable.
2007-02-09 02:50:37 · answer #8 · answered by nickie 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
This war has been going on for hundreds of years. It reached a peak with the plagues in the bible. We just joined the fight to improve GW's chance of getting elected an to secure the oil supply. We had a vehicle that used water as a fuel in 1965, but that would really have messed things up for the big oil people. Only people can defeat terrorist!
2007-02-09 02:20:33 · answer #9 · answered by Pey 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Becaue we do not know what were fighting for so until somebody finds a reason, we might be in Iraq for a lot longa then 4 yrs.
2007-02-09 02:25:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋