Why can't we stomach what needs to be done in Iraq?

Question

The American left is demanding a withdraw and failure in Iraq. They want America to fail so they can blame the right and gain political ground.

But why do we coddle the mission in Iraq to please this American left that wants us to lose? Why do we allow political decisions to effect what must be done. We must close the border with Iran and that will include jets killing anything on the border that moves. We must level areas or neighborhoods where uprisings occur and that means killing the people that live in them. The left minded means of a politically correct was is a simple means of defeat. We can't we stomach victory instead of a politically correct defeat?

Answer 1

dude,

This answered my question better than your answer to my question did!

I like the part about killing anything that moves on the border, especially.

I am gonna watch you bud!

SCI

Answer 2

If life were only black and white, with a simple wrong and right.

What you see as rational others see as irrational and it can be even more ironic when you find the person that disagrees with you holds the same base principles. How does that familiar saying go?... "All is fair in love and war." That line works great in theory but not so well in practice.

I for one agree with you. War should not be so political. War is bloody and dirty. It is funny however that people become so high minded that they think that war is a gentleman's game. That is why the British lost so badly to the colonist at the beginning of the war.

You know, it would be nice to have rules to war, but there are none. There are those that will hide behind innocent people while fighting their war. So, you say kill the innocent person to get the bad guy...? If killing one innocent person will save the lives of 100 other innocent people then perhaps its not a bad choice. But then it is the lesser of two evils and people will feel that you have acted poorly no matter your choice.

I wish that this war were as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

Answer 3

Bush is trying to do politically correct success. He's trying to be all things to all people and is ending up being partial things to all people. He tries to win the war, but he's hamstrung by not being able to use some great, effective devices (such as torture). He tries to make people at home happy and let them know their families will come home and there will be an end. But he can't say when that will be.

The left definitely doesn't want it to be a success and even if fighting stopped completely today, they would say the cost was too great, the time too long. There is no victory possible at this point without doing something drastic. But even after pulling out, there's no victory in the future, as we will be attacked once more. Remember that we did not start this - the core problem is terrorism and radical Islam. The world community is not reacting to radical Islam in a method that hinders it, so we will be in trouble until radical Islam is destroyed.

Answer 4

There are many republicans who want a change in strategy too. There is a lot more going on there that a lot of people don't understand and has little to do with us being there. Iran and Suadi Arabia see Iraq as a broken country that is up for grabs. How long do you think we can stay in a civil war and accomplish anything? Have you read The Shia Revival? The people in the middle east have not been able to sustain peace for very long periods of time. They are not as interested in democracy as they are in their religion. You talk of people being killed like it's no big deal. Maybe you should enlist and be on the ground when people's arms and legs get blown off. And imagine it being your family or fellow Americans. We need to find peace and it won't be through this war, maybe after the middle eastern countries get done dividing up Iraq then there will be peace for a while. Even a lot of republicans believe this is not a winnable war.

Answer 5

Too bad you sound so much like the dictator that was taken out of office. I don't know where you live, or even if you live in the US, but according to your theory, if there was a murderer in your town, to make sure that we (people of the US) want to get rid of him, we should just go in there and kill everyone, including you. I guess that would work....are you going to tell everyone where you live to see if there is enough justification to wipe you out for a crime that someone down the street committed?
How do you suggest that we "close" the border of Iran, when we can't even close the border of the US and Mexico? Do you think that by building some big sand pile across the country will automatically prevent anyone from getting in?
Assume that we stay there and fight, till there is no more to fight with. Then what? Are you willing to have the draft reinstated? 'Cause that is what it will take to end a war or a civil war that has been going on for centuries. How many more thousands of Americans have to die, before you say it's enough? It's not a question of winning or loosing. We already won the war, we just can not win a peace with people who believe from the day that they were born that all of the other people in their country should die. PERIOD. There is no exceptions to their religious beliefs. When is enough, enough?

Answer 6

Our leaders are too worried about world opinion to do what needs to be done. This could have been over long ago.
Invade Iraq. Seal the borders. Disarm the people. That would have brought success. May be too late now. I don't give a da** about world opinion when our young men and women's lives are on the line.

Answer 7

When an autistic child bangs his head against the wall and injures himself, he may continue banging his head against the wall to see if this reduces his pain. That's the theory behind Bush's escalation a.k.a. "surge".

To prevent further injury to that autistic child the first step is to get him to stop banging his head against the wall.

That makes a lot more sense than preaching to him about a "noble cause" etc. blah blah blah.

If anybody wants to talk about "defeat" in Iraq, let's begin by seeking a definition of what "defeat" means. Then compare that with what outcome the continued occupation is producing.

Only a petulant spoiled child imagines that you win every contest. Only a fool visiting Las Vegas thinks that when you are losing at craps the right course of action is to bet more money to see if you can win back what you have lost.

Only an ignorant fool thinks that you fight "terror" (an emotion) by warfare (a military method, not a form of therapy.)

Then there's "victory." Like occupying Iraq forever and supposedly denying terrorists access to it. Like they don't have dozens of other countries to which they can relocate?

Why not proceed with honesty, like this:

Admit that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

Apologize to the people of Iraq.

Send a Hallmark card of best wishes to Al Maliki.

Pack up.

Get out. Not in 2008. NOW.

If Osama is still alive, find his underling who will betray him for a price, locate Osama and arrest the bastard. Alive. Put him on trial, and get ready to learn about the connections of the Bush family with the Saudi Arabian oil elite including the Bin Laden family.

Start putting America first. Spend our resources on domestic needs. Take care of the American people.

Make sure every American household has a full auto weapon, and trained users. Make America impossible to occupy. Observe that nobody since Napoleon has dared to invade Switzerland, where "gun control" means learning to shoot straight and possession is not just permitted but required. Soft targets invite attacks.

Answer 8

Am wondering why our ally Saudi Arabia that borders Iraq, and surely an interest in the outcome, and possesses military hardware sits back and cowers while one of it's allies, being us, could use some help, Got an answer?

Answer 9

Sure, the left wants defeat, but, ironically, the right doesn't what victory - just a very long, preferably interminable war that can be used as a pretext to hold on to 'emergency' powers and extend 'influence' into the area.

Both are horrid, cynical things to want - one side wants thier own country humiliated and defeated, just so they can snatch power back from thier rivals for 4 years; the other wants to bleed their own country to death in persuit of pipe-dreams of democratic hegemony with America in the lead.

Answer 10

Actually, I'm a "leftist" who beleives we should either go to war or not, but never to do it halfway.

If we're at war, i say we ALL are at war, that means civilians participating in making a more efficient wartime society, and having a draft. If every citizen isn't dong SOMETHING, why should our soldiers risk EVERYTHING?