The only way the US is going to win the Iraq war is to resort to nuclear weapons?

Question

Some of you are semi right about the question. It is indeed a semi question, but that is not to say I havent been to school as some may like to think. Far from it.

I'm not American as the Q implies and I am careless if the US loses out there as I'm also not bothered. But the implication here is that they WILL lose. Nukes or not.
Get used to it tangent.

Answer 1

To use on who? The Iraqi people? Don't you think Bush and his monkey Bliar have done enough damage in Iraq?

Answer 2

Why don't we all get a true perspective of nuclear weapons!
The bombs that the US dropped on Japan were atomic bombs. The hydrogen bombs that we have in our arsenal at the present time are 200+ times larger than the ones used on Japan. The difference between atomic and hydrogen is this: an atomic bomb is nothing more than a primer for a hydrogen bomb. If nuclear devices are used today the entire planet will suffer from some form of nuclear fallout...etc. Kind of like committing suicide wouldn't you say. Might doesn't always make right. Now on the issue of Iraq. There has been war in this region since 1900 B.C. Is it our duty to intervene to create peace or is it our intention to vie for the oil in the region? The US shipped mass quantities of weapons to the region during the Iraq-Iran conflict and now we are paying the price for it with the loss of lives in the region (both American & Iraqi). Let the countries in the region solve the problems there that have been raging for there nearly 4000 years.

Answer 3

No, because using nuclear weapons in Iraq would signal the absolute failure of the United States in resolving the problem. The only way to achieve our goals in Iraq is to take a less active role in the Country. The Iraqi people don't trust the United States and see us as an occupying force. As long as we have a strong military presence in Iraq there is going to be major opposition by many different groups in the Country and region. By withdrawing a majority of our forces and sticking to a strictly training and security of U.S. infrastructure we will be giving the Iraqi's the space they need to take control of their own Country. This will also help us be able to talk with other Countries in the region to help who the Iraqi's will be more willing to work with. The time for military force in Iraq is well beyond over and we need to look at other options to stabilize the Country.

Answer 4

Yeah, just blow em all up. That's the way to solve everything. [note the sarcasm] What exactly would constitute a 'win' anyway? I know we are looking for WMD that still may be there, we are trying to kill the terrorists and trying to rebuild Iraq all at the same time...not sure how that would happen in the first place without nukes, but I don't think nuking them would help us either...I have a feeling we would get nuked too.

Answer 5

I would first ask the question "What are we trying to accomplish in Iraq?" We have taken down Saddam and his regime and now all we are accomplishing is getting more service members killed. We need to get out and let this country that has been feuding before Christ walked on this earth either learn to live together or wipe each other off the face of the earth. To me our service men and women have performed above the call of duty and it is time to bring this home.

Answer 6

Win, as in what exactly? Change peoples minds, to WELCOME seeing foreign troops on their streets? And your reaction to Iraqi soldiers entering your house would be what, exactly?
Simply put, there are two main factions vying for overall power in Irq, the Sunnis and the Shias. The Sunni are more moderate and Western friendly, the Shias more fundamentalist and anti-Western. Both are widely spread over the whole large country. Both largely behaved while there was a mad, swivel-eyed dictator in power (Saddam) and now, cheifly, the Sunni spend their days being killed by the Shias, sometimes retaliating.
If you want to nuke them, how are you going to kill one side, and not the other?

Answer 7

Hotep, via fact the West is firmly Judea-christianity, and their own holy books states that israel is the holy land and that they are gods "chosen" people. additionally, the state of israel isn't something extra desirable than the extension of western ideals and ability into the area at a necessary place. Israels region supplies the west a militia presences in north africa and the midsection east. whether, extra to the fact, israel administration the politics of the west by way of money. The international banks of the west are headed, all of them with the help of jews. as a result, israel heavily isn't displayed in a adverse gentle, in spite of what israel does. Salaam, shalom, peace

Answer 8

Nuking Iraq would be just that, nuking Iraq. The enemies of the USA would remain all over the world.

Answer 9

No, but they may end up used on Iran , probably not by the US. Whats that leaking in the Caspian Sea ? Thinks its junk from Irans attempt to power plant ? Yikes. I told them,,its ALL dangerous to everyone, and the earth.

Answer 10

We won the Iraq war in so far as we defeated the government in power. We are now battling insurgents who blend in with the local population. Nuclear weapons are useless against them. Using them, we would have to kill the entire population we are trying to protect. Even if possible, it would be pointless, not to mention immoral ....