Incredibly some are still not convinced...
2007-04-17 09:57:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by Dastardly 6
·
7⤊
5⤋
i must be ( and replaced into) the first to assert that Bush received a substantial victory in Iraq, then grasped tragedy out of the jaws of fulfillment. His dealing with of placed up warfare Iraq replaced into indefensible. His blunders were laid out many circumstances. yet, the invasion of Iraq replaced into justified. Now that we are there, what can we do. even as each lack of life is a tragedy, there have been some 3000 US deaths in Iraq. it truly is fewer than we incurred in one day in the course of the Civil warfare or WW2. Iraq has change right into a substantial battlefield for AQ and Islamic terrorists, and we won't be able to arise with the money for to provide them a victory there. even as the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan, the Islamic extremists were left with an entire united states to reveal right into a training floor and launching pad for terrorism. A decade later, after the Afghan terrorists released the 9-11 attacks, u . s . a . replaced into compelled to invade. Why does all and sundry imagine AQ received't use Iraq as they did Afghanistan? Democracy, because it replaced into envisioned in Iraq, received't succeed. There needs to be a more advantageous correct authorities set up, modeled on the monarchies of Saudi Arabia or Jordan. it truly is really the in straightforward words way the U. S. can properly turn over power and protection. the U. S. will be in Iraq for a decade or longer, with somewhat of success in a help position. yet we won't be able to arise with the money for to leave. A destabilized Iraq will be a substantial battlefield and ought to destabilize the full region.
2016-12-04 05:07:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I suspect around the time of the Walter Reed story, or perhaps a little earlier. But it really doesn't matter. Everyone knows it would be political suicide to go against the AIPAC Lobby, so no one opposed will say anything that would carry such risk.
2007-04-17 11:45:02
·
answer #3
·
answered by Johnnie5 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
6 years to realize that they voted in a bad President.
4 years to realize that this war should've never happened in the first place.
It didn't take me long either to figure out it was a bad idea, either.
2 weeks into the conflict and already I could see the writing on the wall!
2007-04-17 11:33:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
Years ago when the current president's father passed on taking Iraq during Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
God only knows what the current neocons are drunk or high on that keeps them from facing reality.
2007-04-17 10:05:29
·
answer #5
·
answered by Max H 2
·
5⤊
3⤋
Not only have they not figured it out, but to the contrary they're still very much in support of it. They're unable and/or unwilling to make the distinction between resilience and delusional, tunnel-vision obstinacy.
2007-04-17 10:04:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by David 7
·
5⤊
5⤋
sadly many are still blindly following Bush's every whim without concern for right or wrong. Their concern is for Bush or their Party. Not for America.
2007-04-17 09:58:19
·
answer #7
·
answered by truth seeker 7
·
8⤊
5⤋
It was not a mistake. The world is safer without Saddam Hussein. However, I believe the war should be fought more aggressively.
2007-04-17 10:01:15
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
8⤋
Most of them still haven't figured that out.
2007-04-17 09:59:44
·
answer #9
·
answered by cheri b 5
·
6⤊
5⤋
Who said it was a mistake? Would you rather the terrorists come over here and fight? That would have been the alternative, and as sad as it is that we are loosing soldiers, it could've been more innocent like people like you, you stupid lib!!
2007-04-17 10:04:32
·
answer #10
·
answered by BamBam 3
·
5⤊
7⤋