They want to force a "time line" on our troops. Just imagine if we had a 3 year "time line" for WWll? Who should we ask what to do. Republicans, soldiers, or the local population?
2007-03-29 09:57:10 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Do you really think this "war" is the same as WWII? You're kidding right?
This isn't a war. We will never win it because it doesn't really exist. We can't WIN a "war against terrorism" like we can't win a "war against drugs." They are trying to fight an ideal, and you can't kill or win over an ideal. The best thing to do would be to just stop. We should have pretended we "won" when we got Saddam.
2007-03-29 10:01:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
You shouldn't ask the local populations because they are the ones who put the dems their in the first place. You shouldn't ask the soldiers because I can tell you from the time I was in that not all of them are the sharpest tools in the shed. And of course not all republicans are smart either. The only people qualified to win the war are the president, Secretary of defense, and mostly the generals. What I find ironic is that the generals are the only people that liberal politicians do not seem to be asking(unless you consider questioning to get them to say what you want asking).
2007-03-29 10:06:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you asked the local population, they would tell us to get OUT. In fact, they have already told us this on numerous occasions. They are the people who have to suffer through this mess in Iraq.
And don't compare the Iraq war to WWII. The situations are different. In WWII, we were fighting a traditional military force, while in Iraq, we are fighting insurgents who might appear as a wheelchair-bound invalid, or a beggar. We have no element of surprise, which would make it much more difficult to win this war, if we even CAN win.
2007-03-29 10:06:23 · answer #3 · answered by Gordon Freeman 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because first off, "war" is against a finite and definable group of people, not against an idea. Declaring war on 'terrorism' was the first mistake.
Secondly, because its painfully obvious that conservatives have no clue whatsoever how to win a war, probably because they waged war against a concept.
Liberals don't want to win a war that, by its own nature, is unwinable. The best thing to do now is count our losses and move on. There is no winning a futile war.
When will conservatives learn from history's mistakes?
2007-03-29 10:10:26 · answer #4 · answered by Jessica C 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Iraq is not WW2.
i'm not aware of "liberal" politicians claiming to know how to win a war.
a war on terrorism is unwinnable. when do we declare victory? there are plenty of "conservative" politicians who want out of Iraq too. we're in too deep now to just walk out, that won't happen, we'll be there for 10+ years.
politicians should heed the advice of military officials and the local population who by the way don't seem to care for American style democracy forced on them.
2007-03-29 10:04:13 · answer #5 · answered by Diggy 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why do think Bush knows how to win a war?
What makes you think the current generals know how to win a "war" of this type? Has anybody ever completely subdued individual terrorists/guerillas/insurgents in a foreign nation?
Many retired generals have gone on record as saying this war is not "winnable", as Bush defines it.
Comparing this current "police action/nation building effort" in Iraq to WWII is just foolishness.
In WWII, the German nation surrendered, and it was over. We didn't have to capture/kill thousands of individual German citizens who wanted to keep on fighting on their own.
2007-03-29 10:13:24 · answer #6 · answered by celticexpress 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In WW2, there was a single enemy (one per theatre) who could surrender, and clear measurable goals to determine an end.
Neither of those apply in Iraq. There is no single govt or one leader who can cause all conflict to stop, and no other way to measure progress towards any type of objective goals.
That's one of the difference between an actual war like WW2, and an indefinite unilateral occupation like Iraq.
2007-03-29 10:02:05 · answer #7 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The Liberals know that the mission has already been accomplished and it is time to bring the troops home and let the Iraqis police their own country.
2007-03-29 10:02:42 · answer #8 · answered by cheri b 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
like the republican plan is viable , talk tough put someones elses *** on the line and never admit to your mistakes. do you realize how little military experience bush and his chicken hawk team has. yes we need to move out of iraq we have done all we can.
2007-03-29 10:05:52 · answer #9 · answered by doc_of_three 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not that they think they can win the war, It's because the Republicans have proven they can't.
2007-03-29 10:01:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋