Why do the war supporters say the Iraq war can be won?

Question

70% of America says "Get out of Iraq" and many in our Government say "The Iraq war is lost". Why do the war supporters say we can win?

Answer 1

delusion, sorry it's their country they won't stop fighting us, would you? If yes wouldn't you be a traitor?

Answer 2

I dont have faith placing a time cut back is endangering the troops. i think placing a time cut back endangers the Iraqi human beings. Ya understand, the individuals whose lives we've became the different way up via going over there? the individuals who will go through if we depart them unprotected? The democrats want a plan to be sure everybody in touch remains secure. the assumption shouldnt be arguing over while the troops come residing house and how the investment works. while asked for a sturdy plan, the democrats might desire to purely arise with "convey them residing house now or we insist which you convey them residing house later." Come on, this isnt a plan. we want a plan that gets our troops residing house as quickly as achieveable and as properly as achieveable, that wont depart the Iraqi government and Iraqi human beings in limbo. Thats the plan i decide to work out, and im hoping the democrats and republicans, and the Iraqi government can artwork mutually and get that. so a techniques as asserting the electorate are observing, we certainly are. and that i might desire to assert, even with the undeniable fact that the republicans havent finished something stunning, so a techniques the democrats have been quite stupid as nicely.

Answer 3

So the latest popularity poll says get out . . . so what?? World War 2 was just as "unpopular" in the U.S. until Pearl Harbor.

Since the liberal-dominated media have been spoon-feeding the mental midgets that make up the vast majority of those polled a steady diet of crap about what is going on over there, of course they will get a poll that says the war is unpopular. If you cherry-pick your subjects, you can make a poll say any damn thing you want it to. That's the trouble with trying to run a nation by plebicite.

Answer 4

Why can't we listen to the people in charge in the military? why are people who know next to nothing given the power to run the war? If they called me up and asked me, my honest answer would be "I don't know" I'm not a military expert, niether are 70% of the people. I'd venture to say 70% of the people couldn't find Iraq on a globe.
Why do liberals think we should have a government run by Gallup and CNN polls?



lundstrom...we are STILL in Germany and Japan!

Answer 5

There is nothing do win. Only Oil and we are not making any money from that. The US didn't win anything there. They lost the taxpayers money.This is why they are staying there. I hope you listen the news today what the Defense Secretary was saying. Now they trying to make some how timetable for the Iraqi government and saying the US can't stay there not longer, they need to help themselves. This is just a little game, mean if we get out, we still win this war. We told them what to do, they need to listen, if something happened and the situation get worse, this is their problem, we done and we are out. This 70% Americans are tired seeing this war game, I hope it's getting more soon.

Answer 6

The war is already won.

Our goals:

Remove Saddam from power. Reomve the Baath regime from power. Remove the infrastructure to develop wmd's.

All three goals of the war were accomplished. People change the language for political reason, be they on the right or on the left.

What is not over is the clean-up of our mess. That will take time, just like it did with Germany and Japan in ww2. People still forget about the long occupations of these two countries after ww2, and also forget projects like Operation Werewolf in history. It is a shame really.

Answer 7

The war in Iraq has already been won. Saddam was removed from power and the threat of WMD's removed.

What we are doing now is helping the Iraqi people form and run a democratic form of government. Something totally alien in the Middle East except for Israel.

People who support the President are optimists, while the others are pessimists.

Answer 8

What war? By established traditions of jus ad bellum (the part of "Just War" ethics concerned with the question of when the use of military force is "justified"), there was never a "war." There was an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation (Iraq) by another sovereign nation (U.S.) that was not under threat. The invasion of Iraq can't even be called a "preemptive" war by established military theory since there was no established danger of imminent attack. You might call it a "preventive war," but doing so acknowledges the attack as being unjust by traditional philosophies. It's a little absurd to think that there are "rules" about war, but there are—and these are not rules imposed on us by written by us (e.g., “Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field,” became part of General Order No. 100, issued April 24, 1863. One key article read as follows: “The use of poison in any manner, be it to poison wells, or food, or arms, is wholly excluded from modern warfare. He that uses it puts himself out of the pale of law and usages of war.” It was prompted by the discovery that Confederate soldiers had been poisoning drinking supplies by tossing dead bodies and filth into wells.)

So there was no "war." I guess you can't even say it was a coup d'état since it wasn't fomented from the inside out but perpetrated by an outside aggressor (sadly, that was us). We overthrew a government, plain and simple, and removed from power a very bad man. Had we then graciously returned to our regularly scheduled programming, things might not have been quite so intolerable, Illegal, immoral, and ill-advised but...tolerable (I use the term facetiously). But instead we chose to be an occupying force, supposedly there to keep the peace and rebuild Iraq. How very selfless of us! The problem is, before we attacked, there WAS peace (although under a dictator), and no need to rebuild. People forget that before we bombed the bejeepers out of the place, Iraq had roads, electricity, water—not to mention universities, schools, museums. We destroyed those things. And the "reconstruction" (brought to you in part by Bechtel, the company responsible for the "Big Dig," the most costly roadwork in the country: we've paid out $14.6 billion for engineering mistakes, shoddy workmanship, corrupt backroom deals and a pretty new bridge. Oh, and lawyers to take care of those arrested for the above, and the fall-out when part of one of the tunnels collapsed and killed a woman.)

Before we "helped" Iraq, there was no al Qaeda there. Saddam despised them. They were far too religious for his more venal purposes. The civil war hadn't started yet, although without Saddam's ruthless, bloody hand quashing any dissent among the parties, it was inevitable. The U.S. thinks that having deposed a villain it now has the right to set up a new government (or the appearance of one) and to mandate how things should be run. We even talk about partitioning the country, erecting a Berlin Wall of sorts to keep the Kurds and the Sh'ia and the Sunnis from destroying each other. Naturally, the citizens are reacting the say way we all would if a country decided that G.W. Bush was perpetrating atrocities against thousands of people, restricting the free action and speech of his people, and putting his own needs before those of the country (come to think of it...), and decided to bomb the cities, destroy the interstate, disrupt our cable tv (horrors!) and pit Americans against each other. They are pissed, as we would be.

So we come to this: the U.S. has become the dictator after attacking a country on false pretenses. And there is no "war," although there are thousands of soldiers over there being killed. Did you know that more than half the young kids in the military think they are fighting against the people who destroyed the World Trade Center? A lot of their parents have bumper stickers that say "Freedom isn't Free." And they are right. But in this case, we are on the wrong side of the equation.

The only way the U.S. can "win" in Iraq is if the administration can distract Americans away from the fiasco and line up "rally 'round the flag" style (as we did for Iraq...), by uniting us behind the president in something bigger than Viet Nam redux. Hey, here's an idea! Maybe he should find a pretext for nuking another middle eastern Muslim country with stockpiles of WMDs as large as Saddam's! Say, Iran?

Answer 9

Why do you say "we can not win"?

How many times have YOU been to Iraq? Do you know ANYTHING that is going on there????

I will admit, I have never been there, and will never go. So therefore, I do not pretend to know more about it than our military leaders, like Liberals do.

Answer 10

Because the United States can easily win, it may not like the method but there are military solutions.

The stupidity of your "coward speak" is simply due to your inability to form a coherent thought as to why we are there.

Do not fret, or be afraid, let the men protect you and your way of life. Are you a democrat?

Answer 11

Why did I make an anti-war hippie run away?

He tried talking crap when he saw my "Erudite is a douche bag" bumper sticker, so I shattered his nose and then he ran away.

Why?