IMHO, if ywe surrender to Islam this time and leave Iraq, we would have earned every terror attack, car bomb and death we suffer in the future.
2007-03-10 04:39:41 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Let's correct a few misconceptions.
First, the US has suffered one at-home foreign terrorist attack roughly every 7-8 years since the 1970s. Look at the history and the statistics. There's nothing to indicate those numbers are going to change, regardless of what we do.
Second, let's assume that there are as many terrorists at large as there are US forces in the Middle east. Equal numbers. That's roughly 150K terrorists out of an Islamic population of 1.5 billion. Or roughly 1/100th of 1% of Muslims. So, "surrending to Islam" is a meaningless statement, since we're not fighting Islam.
Third, nothing we're doing in Iraq has any effect on the terrorists in Asia, Europe, Africa, South America or North America. Nothing. So, the idea we're "fighting terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here" is laughably naive.
Finally, we're the only ones setting any victory conditions in Iraq. There is no single "other side". We can declare victory any time we want, because we're the only ones setting our own agenda. And our agenda has nothing to do with anything we can accomplish through force of arms. Even Patreaus admits that.
So, we're in Iraq until we declare victory and choose to leave. And we can do that at any time.
2007-03-10 04:46:57 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You of course have little or no concept of what it takes to win an election. no longer in basic terms does it take a sturdy, achievable candidate (which the GOP would not have) whether it additionally take a occasion it is definitely-prepared, centred, and achievable sufficient to strengthen particularly some money. Which the GOP isn't. As somebody else already stated, the GOP is in disarray and is fractured down the middle between hardcore severe authentic followers and extra reasonable republicans that see the occasion veering way authentic. and that is going to make it VERY complicated for them too win ANY elections for a protracted time.
2016-11-23 19:19:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They simply do not know what they are doing. They are like the wind. They change directions constantly. In order to find victory in anything, you have to have strength in character and principles. This structure must be based on analysis of fact and sound theories of judgment. I don't want to say all dems are this way, but as an example gun control they are heading towards the ban of almost everything. Instead, they should consult premium law enforcement officials for their expert opinions and analyze the statistical crimes committed with weapons that pose the majority of threats to the public. Instead they look at a gun and if it looks scary they want to ban it, and then they want to ban more and more. They don't think with a rational mind, but what is convenient at the time...very strange logic if that is what you want to call it.
2007-03-10 05:16:04 · answer #3 · answered by TAHOE REALTOR 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I just wish someone would tell me how we define victory over there. How do we know all the terrorists are gone? If they stop killing until we leave, and start it back up again do we need to go back? Do we need to reinstate the draft to insure we'll have enough troops to spread over the globe to fight these nuts?
Wouldn't it be better to fight them on their own terms than by sending sevicemen with big targets painted on their uniforms. Why not invest all this effort in intelligence and small special forces infiltration units, and fight them on those terms, maybe put a little terror into them.
2007-03-10 04:55:46 · answer #4 · answered by webned 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a great question and I'd love to know the answer. Why surrender now? That's just like saying that the time and blood spent is a waste. Why make our country look weak? What the hell do Dems think about?? Only themselves!
2007-03-10 04:50:17 · answer #5 · answered by layc_510 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They were willing to spend millions of dollars on their presidential campaigns to intentionally "be willing to suffer defeat" in the end? Pull back from the monitor for a second and think before you post next time around...
2007-03-10 04:48:11 · answer #6 · answered by dardekkis 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Right.
carter - dem defeat.
clinton - dem defeat.
If you're not in iraq fighting, you chickenhawks deserve every misery that befalls you in this life.
2007-03-10 04:43:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
We won Viet Nam? I believe it was a republican that got us out of there.
2007-03-10 04:42:33 · answer #8 · answered by i have no idea 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well said, you got a star from me for that one.
2007-03-10 05:53:56 · answer #9 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who said they were willing?
2007-03-10 04:43:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋