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

2007-02-18 15:35:45 · 28 answers · asked by Lost. at. Sea. 7 in Politics & Government Military

28 answers

No, I think the time and loss we have already endured equals losing the war.

2007-02-18 16:04:32 · answer #1 · answered by jwplaster 4 · 1 1

The way it goes, not gonna be possible in somewhere near future. Insurgents are like pests, can never fully exterminate them completely. Need a whole lot of time to revolutionize their culture and traditional believes. The collateral damage at the beginning of Iraq war were far too recent to forgive and forget. The American need a third party nation help to manage war torn Iraq. Back off from Iraq, perhaps reorganize forces in Kuwait and plan what's next to do. Further dwelling in Iraq would mean endless death and irreconcilable resentment.

2007-02-18 16:39:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

If the war was against Saddam and his government, then it is already won. If the war is against the insurgents, then we don't have much of a chance.

Right now it is all about attempting to stabilize a new government. This has to happen or we will just be going back in a few year when the entire middle east is pulled into war. People who think we can just pull out are delusional. If we do that, the civil war, yes its a civil war no matter what Bush says, could spread to Saudi Arabia, Iran, and throughout the region. If this happens, we may have a whole part of the world wanting to fight us.

2007-02-18 15:59:06 · answer #3 · answered by jkoons 3 · 0 0

right this moment it may be confusing yet interior the previous many armies gained wars on remote places soil. right this moment its different, we ought to combat interior the policies and that's the sole difference. eliminate the policies and ban the media and its a different storey, particular you have gotten some militants who think of they are in a position to make a difference yet without policies they does not final long. while an occupied u . s . a . is acquainted with that the folk in value do no longer mess approximately maximum will comply as historic previous a has shown, they won't like it yet while its a call between a bullet interior the top or do as your informed they wont argue. there is not any place for policies in conflict IMO, whats the factor in struggling with a conflict with one hand tied in the back of your lower back, in case you need to combat interior the policies yet your enemy does not your gonna lose. Its time we binned the policies, take the gloves off and supply our enemy's a robust pasting. The Romans had the wonderful theory, kill each thing that strikes, difficulty solved.

2016-10-15 23:47:31 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

At this point- no. The battles will go on until whenever we finally pull out, but the war is lost. Our credibility in that part of the world is completely shot, nobody trusts or likes Bush, and terrorist groups from all over the Middle East are now useing Iraq as a "training Ground (complete with LIVE American targets!) " for their next assault. It's a disgrace.

2007-02-18 15:53:34 · answer #5 · answered by Joseph, II 7 · 1 1

The war with Iraq was won years ago.

You are referring to the occupation of Iraq, that is a more difficult task. Possible, yes. Likely, no.

2007-02-18 15:40:10 · answer #6 · answered by r1b1c* 7 · 2 0

You know I hope that it would work but EVERY time we have done this and it has been quite a few there was a decreased followed by an INCREASE. You do realize we cannot win Rush and Sean are idiots, let’s look at history: "The Taliban regime faced international scrutiny and condemnation for its policies. Only Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the U.S., Saudi Arabia and the UAE cut diplomatic ties with the Taliban". For everyone we kill in Afghanistan or Iraqi he is replaced by two from
Pakistan, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Iran to name but a few. Also for each one we have a future Bin Laden. I really enjoyed the two CIA employees who were jailed for standing up and admitting that that their original report to the White House did not mention WMDS, the Taliban (except to say Saddam was afraid of them) that when their report was cited as the reason to invaded they spoke up but were threaten with termination and jail. However they could no longer stand it and had to stand up and were promptly jailed. What can one say? God Bless You and Our Southern People.

2007-02-18 18:44:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It depends on what your definition of "win" is. If it means to free Iraq from an evil despot, we already have won. If it means to establish a free government in Iraq, it may be "possible," to win, but the goal is still a ways off.

2007-02-18 15:47:38 · answer #8 · answered by Gee Wye 6 · 1 0

Of course it's possible. In the 1940s we simultaneously:
- defeated Imperial Japan
- defeated Nazi Germany
- nationalized our economy
- put 10-12 million men under arms
- invented nuclear weapons
(WITHOUT computers & satellites!)

Victory in Iraq is a much, much, lower hurdle.

However, victory or defeat in Iraq will not be the result of action in the Middle East, but the consequences of political decisions inside Washington DC.

2007-02-18 15:45:43 · answer #9 · answered by Restless 3 · 1 0

America has a few troops fighting in Iraq, but the United States of American is not fighting Iraq!

If we were fighting, we would just say, Do this or else, when they yell, what is the "Else"?, we would push one of our many, many buttons and let a couple thousand missiles rain down on a given area and then ask, does any one else have a smart question? When the first negative word started to come out, we'd just push another button and let a thousand more missiles rain down! Our next question would be, who is next?, Speak up or raise your hand! Give them a repeat of the button action and then ask you, are you next?

You see, America has the missiles, America has bombs the ignite the air for a ten mile radius and leave nothing! They could carpet bomb any or all of the areas that are making so much fuss, never sending in on soldier! But, The United States of America is not fighting Iraq, just a few of our military troops are!

Iraq is very lucky that America has not decided to
really go to war! Too, we do not have to send one troop! IRAN, we should tell them just one more word and we will make glass out of ten of their cities. Do you know what happens to sand when you heat it to a very high temperature?

We can put enough crap on Iran, in a few hours, to turn that place into a mirror. ALL of IT!

2007-02-18 16:08:26 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Short answer - probably not. We have gotten ourselves involved in a culture much different from our own. The PNAC thought that we could win the war and change the politics of the middle east Unfortunately they failed to consider all the variables. The people of the middle east do not think the same way that we do.
Can you imagine trying to recruit suicide bombers in this country?

2007-02-18 15:44:15 · answer #11 · answered by huduuluv 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers