win the war in Iraq? Especially w/ a limited amount of US troops & an unlimited amount of terrorists & the added difficulties of fighting them in the middle of a civil war?
And Cutting & Running is NOT an OPTION! So all you yellow bellied libs just keep you mouths shut.
2007-02-21 02:17:47 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
is this PREVERT ORIELLY studio pilfer
or Hannity fool
nuking iraq IS NOT AN OPTION ss wipe nazi
NO ONE WINS IN A NUCLEAR WAR FOOL
libs will LEAVE IRAQ
IN PEACE something you repukes hate
with muslims iraq and iran
2007-02-21 02:24:00 · answer #1 · answered by impeachbushnoww 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This is the 64 million dollar question isn't it.
The reality is that no one has an answer on how to succeed in Iraq for the simple fact that we are on unprecendted grounds. Our Commander-in-Chief has shown the world that he absolutely must have failed World Civ 1 & 2 and US History 2 at YALE, otherwise he would have seen how Alexander the Great, and Cyrus the Great before him conquered that part of the world and avoided this nonsense. He also would have known that after WWII we allowed former Nazis back into positions of power b(because they were the only people of governing ability since 1933) until we could create personalities that could govern under a democratic system. Because we are a noble nation we are unable to institute the tactics of the Mongels or even Saddam Hussein himself.
So how to fix Iraq?... With Saddam dead and the military disbanded, short of chopping off everyone's head and burning them outside of the city gates (as per the Mongols) we are kind of stuck.
Julius Ceaser had the same problem in dealing with the Gauls. Roman arrogance placed Roman magistrates in charge of these conquered people and it took Ceaser almost ten years until he pacified the Gauls.
So we can grin and bear it for six more years if your willing to but with the price going up and the British moving out. I personally don't have an answer for how you fix Iraq because too many mistakes have already been made.
2007-02-21 02:36:10 · answer #2 · answered by gatewlkr 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The war in Iraq has NO other name besides, the war in Iraq, because it is NOT a war. It is a political run to the top of the hill involving many parties. And in one man´s view bombing many people and their land is winning, but to the other side maybe they are winning because America is STILL bombing. So anyway, my belly, is like my butt, nice and tan, and waiting for you to kiss. Love and Respect (well maybe not for all the creeps)
And how are you going to just end something with keep your mouths shut??? This is internet, nobody is using their mouths (apart from some dinkuses that mouth everything they write), so expect to get bashed if you come into the virtual reality variety store that we call the WWW. Think first, and maybe you won´t have to explode. Duhhhhhhh hickey.
2007-02-21 02:27:25 · answer #3 · answered by nassim420 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
you're suitable, that pastime replaced into performed. Now there's a sparkling pastime. Osama has been marginalized. Iran and No. Korea are our greatest concern. And we are their best problem. Iran knows that they might't proceed to construct their nuclear weapons if Iraq is a consultant-American democracy. this is why they are working so hard to cajole us to depart. They recruit desperate human beings (there are a lot in the middle East) to explode some industry or police station through fact they comprehend it is going to play on American television. It serves no objective. They earnings no militia or economic make the main of this. yet they are hoping to cajole you that they might out survive us. this is a classic "approach of exhaustion" as postulated by potential of Mao Zedong. If we depart now, we could make the international a extra risky place. Iraq will never be professional-American. Nor will they in all hazard proceed to be a democracy. we'd have wasted in line with hazard the final threat to circumvent a disastrous conflict with a nuclear armed opponent. Superpolitics - you write too a lot and say no longer something. My brothers in hands have been being shot at by potential of Saddam's militia in violation of the quit-fireplace, Saddam did have WMDs nonetheless no longer many, Saddam replaced into bobbing up transport structures for WMDs in violation of international regulation. P.S. there is not any "regulation" against a sovereign united states attacking yet another sovereign united states for any reason.
2016-10-16 04:14:55 · answer #4 · answered by cutburth 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Assuming we have to stay (and I think you are right on that part), going foward we need to:
(1) Seal the borders with Iran and Syria.
(2) Disarm the militias
(3) Get the Suni's a real stake in the new government.
(4) Give the Iraqi's a sense of security.
Nuking is out of the question, and just tossing all "rules of engagement" are not going to work. There is no question more troops are needed at this point (They always were, Rumsfield is an idiiot). 20K are not going to do diddly poop to solve the issues.
If we can't accomplish 1-4, then we need to leave, because we can't solve the problem.
-Dio
2007-02-21 02:30:27 · answer #5 · answered by diogenese19348 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bullshit, you just want to hear what you want to hear "Stay in Iraq and keep having men die, keep Bush in power"
I hope for a draft that way all you stupid western religious red necks see that life isn't fun in the military. You're lucky we even have men and women who are willing to serve so you don't.
And what are you blessed for? For the right to vote for a corrupt president? Yes that's the reason. And why do you all say that no other president is good? If you're so religious, then you must not like war? Besides, thy shall not kill? Well what's Bush doing? Killing for no reason. Stupid hipocrats.
2007-02-21 02:38:51 · answer #6 · answered by alco19357 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The sad answer is, there appears to be no win scenario on the horizon. We can delay things for a bit, but that region is not going to be stable any time soon. I don't blame Bush for this, it just happens to be the facts. That means get ready to pay through the nose for gasoline. At least it isn't $20.00/gallon yet
2007-02-21 02:27:57 · answer #7 · answered by SteveA8 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The U.S. is already a defeated nation in the Iraq war. You just don't know it yet...
2007-02-21 03:14:57 · answer #8 · answered by roadwarrior 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's about getting the government of Iraq to secure the freedoms of all Iraqis no matter whether sunni or shiite. When the government shows it competence, the violence will gradually abade.
2007-02-21 02:23:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
the bottom line is we must be as resilient and then some,as those terrorist scum...are we goin to "WIN"not really but we must show them that they can't win either.....if we pull out they will get such a morale boost..and it shows the world that we are quitters and they will come after us......and then Iran will come and then north Korea will come and then we are in a world of you know what....alot is riding on this and the moron libs and SP want us to act like france....but we all know how history sees them
2007-02-21 02:28:06 · answer #10 · answered by Philip C 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋