Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday the war in Iraq is "lost." Do you agree?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

Answer 1

To have a U.S Senator, the majority leader no less say we have lost while troops are still on the ground is disgusting. I guess he supports the troops huh?

Answer 2

Yeh i agree with the person above in that at the moment..
yes.

i just have to say to Jamie S who made a reply earlier! how can you say that- Iraq belongs to Iraqi people.. how would you like it if russia came up to america and told you to leave your country cos there was a civil war!

The united states went into the iraq, in my opinion, to remove a horrible dictator tyrannt from power as he had murdered millions of his own people and Iranians. they did that and just didn't use enough intelligence forces and enough troops to stabilise the country afterwards and this elaves to civil war between the Shiites who were in powre and teh sohnii.
With that logic, should pallestine and israel leave their countries and move to the north pole?? ?

i have hope that iraq will benefit from the fall of sadaam husseein and although YES AMERICA WANTS OIL ... would you do anything without an incentive? ?
Azerbaidzhan has the highest amount of the oil in the world, over 50% in Baku specifically.. if all america wanted was oil.. they why not attack a small... totally unprotected and more complacent nation such as that .

Answer 3

Reid--and others--do care approximately our troops. the assumption is to grant Bush the call of the two agreeing to a timetable or having the war stopped via getting investment cut back off. instead o fleaving our troops in Iraq indefinatelyto die for no longer something--it extremely is what Bush and hs supporters decide to do.

Answer 4

I believe it very well could be. I think there were critical errors made at the start of the campaing. The first being the belief that we had destroyed the enemy in a matter of days. We were only looking at the uniformed Iraqi military, which we did destroy rapidly. The insurgency that formed was never anticipated and that makes very little sense to me. The war planners had to see that coming. Sadam kept the factions at bay thru fear. Once he was gone civil war was iminent. I believe that the United States cannot win this war because it is no longer our war. It is a civil war which must play itself out. Just like the civil war we had in this country, Iraq must have theres and the strongest faction will win and that will be the dominant group in power. We still believe we can form a democracy there fashioned after the western governments, which is just not true. We need to bring the troops home and let them have there civil war.

Answer 5

The war, as we have been fighting it, is most definitely lost. I think that it is a direct result of our failure to secure what should have been one of our primary objectives: the hearts and minds of the people. But our heavy handedness and our prison camps have nullified that. Think Abu Ghraib. Also, we failed to develop any sort of infrastructure, ignoring opportunities to stimulate Iraqi industries. Think no-bid contracts for Cheney's friends.

We went about it all wrong, and some people seem to have the conception that there are "the good guys" and "the bad guys" and if you just get all of the "bad guys", it'll be ok. But the manner in which we've gone about our business has ensured that for every "bad guy" we catch, many more "good guys" are turning into "bad guys".

For those of you who would spout off the "turning our backs on our troops" crap, that's what that is, crap. Our troops, God bless them, are in a quagmire right now, fighting for little more than the president's pride and his friends' money, against an enemy that can't really be beaten with their M-16's. And now they have to stay for 15 month tours...

How much longer can they be expected to bear the brunt of the failures of their leaders?

Answer 6

Yes, I agree that under the current war plans, the war is lost. No amount of arrogance or stubborness can erase the fact that we continue to face a battle that cannot be won with guns and tanks. Even Gen. Petraeus has said that there is no way to win militarily in Iraq without first solving the political problems. I keep waiting for Bush to listen to even one of his generals, but I think I'll be waiting for a long time to come.

Answer 7

I don't agree that it's "lost".. I do think that it will be if we keep the troops there though.. I think the only way that we can "win" is to get the Iraqi's to stand up for themselves and get out. It's been continuously getting worse there since we started. I don't see it getting better by staying.. They need to hand over power and get out. If the U.S. leaves, I'd think that most of the problems there would gradually go away enough for the Iraqis to handle their own security faily easily..

Answer 8

The way they are fighting it yes. If they would go stomp em like you should in a war it would have been over by now. Also why rebuild Iraq? If they actually cared about wiping terrorists out in Iraq they would have turned it into a sea of glass, and left.

Answer 9

As long as the soldiers have to consult with a lawyer before every mission, then the war is lost.

Answer 10

It was lost the Day our troops marched so rapidly across Iraq and then surrounded Baghdad, facing almost no resistance.
The message that day was clear, if you want us you are going to have to go door to door. We won on the open desert, but there was no win in going door to door. Even if you win you lose on those terms, for you upset more people than you defeat that way.
Iraqis want us to leave, we should accomodate them. But that is not what bush is there for, so don't count on him doing anything other than "stay the course" oops, the Surge.