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

It’s a very obvious point, but it obviously isn’t one that’s seen in Washington or by the troops who refuse to mutiny on this senseless war.

2007-03-13 15:03:10 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

10 answers

How are their lives getting worse? Maybe you don't remember what life was like when Saddam was in power?... you don't think that civilians were dying over there before the idiots in the media decided it was news-worthy? Because they were... whether you believe it or not, their lives for the most part are much improved and the *majority* of the populace are happy to have us there and like what we are doing. For example, tribal leaders have asked for stronger Coalition presence in their areas after seeing the positive effects it has had in other areas.

As always, they only show you the negative side on the news.

2007-03-13 15:16:14 · answer #1 · answered by ? 3 · 1 2

You can't win. The "war" has been over for a long while now. What is going on over there now is called a civil war between rival factions based on ethnic/religious grounds.
Also, with Iran causing trouble in predominatly the southern region & the withdrawl of many British Troops soon from the southern area things will only become more dangerous for the U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
As I said, there is no war to win, never was in my opinion as the premise for invading Iraq was to oust Sadam & find the weapons of mass destruction. Well, Sadam is dead & if there were weapons of mass destruction they have likely been in Syria for a long while now, although I have no proof they transfered any to Syria.

History teaches that you cannot "win" any war if you don't win the minds & hearts of the defeated. What you wind up with is a long protracted mess that takes huge amounts of troops, equipment, supplies & cash to name a few things. If not at first then at some point the defeated so to speak will begin to counter your invasion of their soil by using tactics that others in history have used. For instance, the french resistance during the 2nd world war, the north vietnamese, the underground in Holland just to name a few.
It's been a major flaw with many major powers if you study history, they tend to think of the "enemy" as weak or weaker than they are which in terms of numbers is most often true, but they often either don't consider what happens after they "win" or don't care. This is one of their major weaknesses & eventually leads to their downfall as a power in military terms as well as often leading to an economy that is damaged sometimes beyond repair.

I don't profess to know what every Iraqi citizen thinks of the U.S. I can't imagine that the majority are living their daily lives feeling good about the situation to say the least.

I may get some thumbs down for this & that's fine by me, that's what makes this country great. We're free to not agree.

God Bless America

2007-03-13 15:56:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Things don't look good for Iraq do they. If we stay people will get killed including our soldiers. If we leave the slaughter will be beyond acceptance and are we going to sit around and watch it with our arms crossed while the rest of the world puts us down and tries to put a wedge into our weak spot to destroy us and return the world back into a very unsafe place for all. Yep, a real mess. The best solution is to just admit that you are no good and go on with life hoping everyone else will leave you alone knowing that you are an ***-kicking sob that will hit back when hit.

2007-03-13 16:15:19 · answer #3 · answered by JORGE N 7 · 1 1

i do no longer think of it rather is approximately winning any war. We gave the Iraquian's their freedom and now attempting to coach them to combat their very very own wars against the insurgents. It replaced into noted as "Operation Iraq Freedom." I even have pictures the place the Iraquian's have been happy the american's got here to unlock them from Saddam; sort of like as quickly as we liberated France from the Nazi you recognize and ended international war II and destroyed Nazi Germany. study your historic previous. Saddam in my e book replaced into no longer something yet yet another Hitler.

2016-10-02 02:07:26 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Unfortunately you haven't heard about all the good that is being done and the Iraqis thank our men over and over!
You just watch the news that is one sided. They don't want you to think the iraqis appreciate us over there helping them to achieve a free democracy....Its been rough in Baghdad more than other places... But they are winning Baghdad also little by little....Think positive of our forces. Not negatively!

2007-03-13 15:20:52 · answer #5 · answered by mom of a boy and girl 5 · 1 2

Iraq had nothing to do with the planning,funding and execution of the attack on this nation on 9/11/01.
Iraq was a war of choice waged by this twit in the White House
For public consumption - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “If you about just the cost, the money, Iraq is a very different situation from Afghanistan…Iraq has oil. They have financial resources.”
Source: Fortune Magazine, Fall 2002
Facts in evidence - Washington - "American contractors swindled hundreds of millions of dollars in Iraqi funds, but so far there is no way for Iraq's government to recoup the money, according to US investigators and civil attorneys tracking fraud claims against contractors."
US Firms Suspected of Bilking Iraq Funds By Farah Stockman,
The Boston Globe
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense…Reconstruction funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it." Source: Senate Appropriations Hearing, 3/27/03
Fact :"Courts in the United States are beginning to force contractors to repay reconstruction funds stolen from the American government. But legal roadblocks have prevented Iraq from recovering funds that were seized from the Iraqi government by the US-led coalition and then paid to contractors who failed to do the work." - The Boston Globe

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03

Fact - Grayson said the injustice surrounding wasted Iraqi funds has helped fuel the insurgency.

"The DFI was essentially treated as a 'slush fund' for various quasi-military projects, run by US contractors over whom Iraqis had no control," he said. "Like a colonial power, the Bush administration took Iraq's oil money, and wasted it. The Iraqis well know that. That's one reason why they're shooting at US soldiers." - Farah Stockman The Boston Globe Sunday 16 April 2006

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: “This is not Afghanistan…When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize here is a country which has a resource. And it’s obvious, it’s oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue each year…$10, $15, even $18 billion…this is not a broke country.” Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03

Fact - "The coalition ultimately controlled more than $20.7 billion in Iraqi funds. The money was deposited into an account called the Development Fund for Iraq, or DFI, which was set up, in the words of the US administrator at the time, L. Paul Bremer III, "for the benefit of the Iraqi people."

"The fund represented the first cash reservoir US officials turned to as they worked to rebuild roads, bridges, and clinics. It carried fewer restrictions than the $18.4 billion in US funds appropriated around that time for reconstruction because those funds could only be used in ways designated by Congress."

"But the Coalition Provisional Authority lacked basic controls and accounting procedures to keep track of the billions in Iraqi money it was doling out to contractors, according to a series of audits issued in 2005 and 2006 by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, a temporary office set up by Congress to oversee the use of reconstruction funds. One review of the files relating to 198 separate contracts found that 154 contained no evidence that goods or services promised by contractors were ever received, according to an April 2005 audit by the inspector general." - The Boston Globe Sunday 16 April 2006

2007-03-13 15:23:39 · answer #6 · answered by thequeenreigns 7 · 1 2

You've been mighty busy. Most sources have incomplete samples and come to the opposite conclusion. I can't imagine how you managed to poll all the population of Iraq, but it must have been difficult. Congratulations.

2007-03-13 15:17:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

It takes time. A lot of time. This war isnt something thats going to be quick. Bush said that in his speech after September 11th.

2007-03-13 15:08:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

I guess your iraqy friends are doing their jobs by getting dummies like you to go against the free world way of destroying terriorists and helping to bring those terriorists here to kill you and your family and friends.

2007-03-13 15:20:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

When were you in Iraq?

2007-03-13 15:08:11 · answer #10 · answered by pronoun 2 · 3 2

fedest.com, questions and answers