I'm not asking whether we should be there, or whether it's winnable, or whether the cause was just.
I'm asking a simple yes or no question, primarily of leftists...Do you want to see a US victory in Iraq?
2007-02-26 10:13:08 · 18 answers · asked by Rick N 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Argle: So I guess that's a "No" from you. Typical.
2007-02-26 10:25:46 · update #1
Argle: That borders on "insulting other participants". You're fortunate that I'm not a thin-skinned leftist, or you'd be reported. It's not my fault you're unable to answer a simple yes or no question. Maybe one day when you grow up.
2007-02-26 10:29:40 · update #2
Frightening, how many people on Yahoo want us to Lose.
Well.....so does the Democrat Party.
(If we lose, it's means more Money & Power for the Democrats. BIG TIME.)
2007-02-26 10:19:45 · answer #1 · answered by wolf 6 · 4⤊ 4⤋
What could possibly be your definition of "victory"? The cessation of violence? Fine, the violence will cease when every single Iraqi man, woman, and child is dead. Is that the victory you crave? It's the same as the situation in Viet Nam. Someone in the government with a brain (go figure) finally realized that we could not win the war without killing all the Vietnamese. So we left, and the communists took over. Maybe there are fewer civil rights in Saigon now, but it's really hard to enjoy the fruits of victory when you're not alive to do so.
2007-02-26 10:25:24 · answer #2 · answered by vt500ascott 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I've said it before, and i'll say it again. We already won the war, at least the one that we started. What exists now is an insurgency, bordering on civil war centered around religious, cultural and tribal /familial differences.
Our soldiers are trained in warfare (and they are the absolute best in the world). They are not policemen, an endeavor which requires a totally different skill set.
The Iraqi's have had 4 years to get their butts in gear, and they have not done so. I don't think we should be prepared to support this government forever.
Sectarian violence has existed in the middle east as far back as the bible. We're not going to change that in any short term way.
2007-02-26 15:29:01 · answer #3 · answered by Charlie S 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What war? We aren't fighting a war, we are sacrificing our kids. The Second World War, was a war, brute force as much as could be brought to bear at any given time. This is an occupation in the hopes something positive will eventually happen to save face for the President. Four years with no direction, aimless wondering around from one objective to another, never accomplishing the previous one. We should have had this more thought out and got out after Saddam was captured and no WMD's were discovered.
2007-02-26 10:28:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
To Joey Whines we didn't have the British, the French or any other foreign occupiers here from 1776 to 1789 . I guess, victory in Iraq would mean that we bring our troops home and let the Iraqis get their own government together. Yes. I'm all for that!
2007-02-26 10:33:07 · answer #5 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I do, I just don't think it's going to happen.
I love America and I also want to see less people die, both Americans and Iraqis. But we're not going to win, because no matter how much money we throw at it (and we're out of money to throw) or how many soldiers we send (and the surge would take up almost all of them) we cannot defeat the insurgents. We can kill them, but they're like Whak-A-Moles: they keep coming back. Victory in Iraq would be nice, but it's not gonna happen and right now we need 'peace with honor'.
2007-02-26 10:27:16 · answer #6 · answered by Nick A 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I certainly have subject concerns with 13 14 15, 13- all funeral fees are lined by using the militia, its in our settlement. 14- they do no longer document all information, how i be attentive to that's im right here see issues and notice them contained in the information in some days and its thoroughly incorrect. 15- those style of old platforms are nevertheless in use right here and that they paintings extra effective than various the recent stuff. certainly i haven't considered a sparkling weapons equipment experience 2010.
2016-12-18 11:31:10 · answer #7 · answered by balcom 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know what victory in Iraq is.
Do you?
If you are implying that "leftists" are hoping for "failure" in Iraq, we are not. We think the effort in Iraq to rid it of WMDs, which was the point of going there, supposedly, has failed. They didn't have any. They didn't even have Al Quada before we got there.
We think it HAS failed. Now we want to be smart about how to get out of there, and we don't want any more soldiers or civilians to die. Every day they continue to die, and we want that to stop.
If you would, please tell me what you mean by "win" and I can answer more specifically.
2007-02-26 10:21:14 · answer #8 · answered by justagirl33552 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
How do you define "winning"? Right now, Iraq is in the middle of a civil war: how do "we" win? Many define "winning" as preventing US soldiers from getting killed where there is no real benefit to the US in having them where they are right now. I want the US to "win": I just don't agree with the administration's definition of "winning".
2007-02-26 10:31:08 · answer #9 · answered by Blackacre 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
We will never win In Iraq. It took The US from 1776 to 1789 to become a country. Americans have a short attention span. We already want to bail out of Iraq.
2007-02-26 10:21:34 · answer #10 · answered by JoeyNyne 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes. However, I thought we won when we deposed Saddam and destroyed his weapons. If you think we won't "win" until the Shiites and Sunnis decide to get along, be prepared for a long wait. They've been arguing over who is the legitimate heir to Mohammad for 800 years.
2007-02-26 10:18:40 · answer #11 · answered by David M 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋