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

Source: USA newspapers. Military members who have been over in Iraq. History of Vietnam. ( Note: What happened to the "WAR WILL BE OVER IN 6 MONTHS") This was told to the USA people in Feb 2003. Slam dunk!! Open Hearts, Open Arms! Then in July 2003 we were told.....The Insurgents are just dead enders. They won't last long. The war in Iraq will be over in 8 months.

2007-03-09 16:36:50 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

21 answers

Actually the war has been won, it is the occupation that we are losing. Remember when Dead Eye Dick Cheney said the insurgency was in its last throws. Ha ha, not in my lifetime and maybe yours.

2007-03-09 16:49:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

I can't agree the war in Iraq has been lost at all, However, it is obvious to all that the desired PEACE following the war hasn't happened. The government/military planners failed to consider the possible aftermath of toppling Saddam in other than positive terms and therefore failed to have what you might call a "Plan B ". There is a real need here to differentiate between political and media hype (e.g., "WAR WILL BE OVER IN 6 MONTHS") and an objective view of what is actually happening on the ground. It is my understanding that over 3/4 of the Iraqi provences are stable and quiet. The remaining few that are "active" receive 99% of the news coverage and that coverage (in my opinion) is highly slanted to favor a particular political position...not reality. What is important are facts, not media or political hype.

2007-03-09 22:01:22 · answer #2 · answered by twocheck6 2 · 0 0

We "lost" Vietnam because the surrender monkeys wouldnm't allow the war to be fought like a war and wanted to run away, and teh enemy was encourgaed by teh deomnstations and nitwits like Hanoi Jane who think just because they act in movies anyone gives a crap what they think. The failure was in assuming there was a "good side" to be on over there, that each group wasn't playing us against the other, or that sunnis or shiites would be "good" in one country and "bad" on the otherside of a line drawn on a map. If there can be no peace in Iraq, there is no hope for the rest of the Middle East, or any other place islam dominates a nation. The drawing of wannabe insurgents and terrorists from Europe, UK, Canada, Australia and USA to Iraq has been a GOOD thing as it collects them in one place like a bug zapper, they are there for only one reason. With any luck they will never leave. Unless teh dems call it off first, then they will follow the retreating forces with the idea they have the USA on the run, and technically, the enemy will be correct. So you can rejoice when the car bombs go off in the USA instead of Baghdad, that our troops are dying on American soil instead. It's an ugly mess that must be dealt with, creating a civil war in our own backyard solves nothing.

2007-03-09 16:52:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

What war? Wars are between governments of different countries. We are not at war with any government.

We are helping another country strengthen their police force, their military defenses, and their judiciary. It is a matter of stopping criminal behavior.

We did the same thing in Germany after WW II. We also lost a lot more of our troops in Germany after WW II than we have in Iraq.

Iraq is not our enemy; it is our ally. If we helped the United Kingdom fight insurgents in their country, would we be at war with the UK? Of course not.

Iraq now has a civilized way to overthrow their government, just like in the United States. They simply have to convince enough people to vote the same way to accomplish the task. We in the US overthrow our government regularly, usually without firing a shot.

When someone tries to do it the other way, they are criminals and should be treated as such.

2007-03-09 16:52:37 · answer #4 · answered by danny_boy_jones 5 · 2 1

So the main modern-day popularity ballot says get out . . . so what?? international war 2 grew to become into in basic terms as "unpopular" in the U.S. till Pearl Harbor. because of the fact the liberal-ruled media have been spoon-feeding the psychological midgets that make up the familiar public of those polled a delicate food plan of crap approximately what is going on over there, of direction they gets a ballot that publicizes the war is unpopular. in case you cherry-%. your subjects, you additionally could make a ballot say any rattling difficulty you want it to. this is the difficulty with attempting to run a rustic by technique of plebicite.

2016-09-30 11:27:01 · answer #5 · answered by faim 4 · 0 0

Look, dirt bag, we have never lost a war. In fact, if you look at Viet Nam, we always regained any territory that we lost. Our long term involvement in Viet Nam, whether you agree with it or not, could have lasted longer, but the American people decided it was time for the Vietnamese to fight their own battle. It also showed the Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China to what length we could go if we had to, which had a direct influence on the fall of the USSR. American military people can fight indefinitely, as long as they have the supplies. But obviously, it will not end. I do not believe that we should be there, but I also want us to supply our troops with all they need plus more, until we pull them out. It is now the responsibility of the Iraq people to fight their own fight. They have been putting it off long enough. Iraqi's need to do their job.

2007-03-09 17:15:09 · answer #6 · answered by ProLife Liberal 5 · 2 2

The new commander of the army said things look worse
now than they did 17 months ago.
If we left today, Muslims would continue to try to kill
each other, the same thing that has been going on there
for decades.
For Bush to think he can create a democracy is absurd,
but then again, this is the same person that said God
told him to do it.

2007-03-09 16:47:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

We did win. The government was toppled.
We did not succeed in "nation building".

Solution? Don't nation build.
Next time we are attacked, notify them (by numerous sources) that they must evacuate three cities (we pick them, one of them is the capital). We give them two weeks to evacuate and then we will bomb the cities.

Then bomb one of them to the ground.

No ground troops, no seditious nonsense from socialists trying to undermine our country or its interests.

No nation building. You are right. We should have attacked and left. You cannot nation build when almost every nation is surround and dominated by the dictatorial 7th Century nonsense that Islam has made those poor people. They protest their own governments, the governments kill them. We try to free them, half the governments in the region try to stop us.

Agreed. No more nation building.

2007-03-09 16:47:43 · answer #8 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 4 1

The objective of riding the old regime was successful. The creation of a new government and stability is the failure. It is now in the hands of the Iraqi's. You cannot help those who do not want to help themselves.

2007-03-09 17:12:28 · answer #9 · answered by Cherry_Blossom 5 · 1 0

I sure hope so. Most of us knew it was insanity from the start. The only good I see coming of the mounting bodies in years to come is the fog lifted from many pseudo-patriotic eyes.

2007-03-09 17:26:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers