Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Thursday that conditions in Iraq may get harder before they get easier and will require "an enormous commitment" over time by the United States.
hmmmm. Gw Cheney and gen Pete expect obama or Hilary when they become president to take on this long term commitment when they oppose the war.
2007-04-26 05:08:49 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Oh yeah the senate also.
2007-04-26 05:09:41 · update #1
lol headgear. by the way they are not in a civil war. cbs thinks so.
(CBS) Behind the blood and chaos of the insurgents' bombs, there is an undeclared civil war already underway in Iraq, between the Sunni minority who ruled this country under Saddam and the Shiite majority.
2007-04-26 05:15:43 · update #2
lmao @ flacid. congress and the senate want the troops to come home because they know what the long term affect in Iraq is...more troop deaths and money dumping into a fallacious war.
2007-04-26 05:18:35 · update #3
that and the fact that the case for war has not, to this day, ever been adequately made.
every single justification for the invasion of iraq has either proven to be completely wrong or an out and out lie.
and as to the committment that the bush admin likes to talk about - why are they making sure that NO ONE IN AMERICA HAS TO GIVE ANYTHING TO THIS WAR!
the bush admin talks about long term committment with one hand, while signing the first ever war time tax cuts with the other.
they know that if the war caused any sort of pinch anywhere in the nation that no one would support it at all - as it is over 70% don't support it now.
the war supporters talk about sacrifice out of one side of their mouth and assure everyone that nothing will change out of the other side of their mouth.
never have so many suffered so much to benefit so few...
2007-04-26 05:23:06 · answer #1 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No. It isn't.
This civil war has been going on LONG before we got into it.
However, I agree in some ways with not having gone in in the first place.
We should have given them two weeks warning, name three cities, advertize it with fliers and airwaves, then bomb one of them after giving them the two weeks to evacuate. Oh, we'd miss some things, some weapons, the army would leave. So?
Do it again with six cities and two final targets if they don't get the message.
No more nation building. Wait for the attack (I think having Saddam try to assassinate the elder Former President Bush is sufficient, as it would have been for me if Former President Clinton had been targeted), and then procede as I outlined.
That would make it kind of hard for socialists and the seditious to complain.
I'm dreaming, aren't I. They STILL would, just for political points. Ah, well.
2007-04-28 21:52:17 · answer #2 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think Obama or Hillary will be the next president simply because of the conduct of the members of their own party.
The reason the Dems are the majority now is because the Reps shot themselves in the foot through the conduct of some of their off the wall members AND they've alienated their more conservative constituents by leaning more moderate and liberal.
Congress is not seeing the big picture in what our presence in Iraq really represents, and the long term consequences.
2007-04-26 12:16:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's not a civil war. Most of the insurgents are from other countries like Syria, Iran an Jordan. Flush out your headgear.
2007-04-26 12:14:02 · answer #4 · answered by sarpedons 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I'm just amazed that people will post lies like, "Most of the insurgents are from other countries."
I can't imagine what they hope to accomplish.
2007-04-26 12:16:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yep. They will bring them home. Complete mistake.
2007-04-26 12:49:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's all about the Stock Fraud
Lie, Still, and Kill.
2007-04-26 12:29:12 · answer #7 · answered by Conan 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋