Isnt the same as how the afghans beat the Russians in the 80's?
2007-04-26 16:48:26 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
We are slow to learn. Remember every company George ever ran was a failure. He took that talent to Washington with him. Might does not make right, and we are certainly in the wrong.
2007-04-26 16:53:57 · answer #1 · answered by lcmcpa 7 · 3⤊ 5⤋
First tell me what you think the wars were for and what victories would have looked like. It is possible to win every battle in a war and still lose the war. You can email me if you like. Most people don't understand when the war over Vietnam started or what it was for. Algeria is the same thing. If you don't understand what the wars were about then you have no way to judge if they were successes or not. USA lost in Vietnam. But not for the reasons you likely think. Not for the reasons the other people answering above think either.
2016-05-19 23:54:01 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We are not losing the war. According to reports, 85% of Iraq is in control and this is being done by the Iraqis. The part we are losing is twofold. First, the media is reporting what they want to report, and not the complete story. They believe it is their God-given right to cause doubts in the American public.
Second, Congress is not allowing us to fully wage battle. This war would be over quickly if we began strategic bombing of Iran and Syria. We need to tell the world we are not scare of another WWII, and fight this war. We lost Vietnam because we could not attack Hanoi, Cambodia, or Laos.
War sucks. But, if you are going to fight it, then don't hold back any punches. America has the reputation of being nice and scared. Our leaders were afraid of starting WW III, so they kept us from fighting to achieve victory in Korea and Nam. We lost 60,000 soldiers in each war, and did not win.
It's like playing football. What happens to the team if you prohibit the players from tackling the opposing team members? They lose, but not because of the abilities, but because you did not allow them to win.
Allow us to win, or get us out!!!!
2007-04-26 17:16:28 · answer #3 · answered by jack-copeland@sbcglobal.net 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they have a far better weapon of mass destruction up their sleeves, democrats.
Imagine we are at war with a tough cunning enemy and we needed anything we could to go in our favor in order to win.
NOW imagine suddenly that after 2 years into such a war, the legislative body of our enemy were calling their own troops nazis, terrorists, stupid, and were having friendly meetings with our allies specifically to undermine their president and the war. Lets also imagine that such a congress of the enemy constantly argued that the war couldnt possibly be won and that they should resign to defeat and recall the troops as soon as possible. And even their own media in that country mostly backed the defeatists echoing their points in their newspapers in sheer hatred of the president.
What would we conclude about such a country? A. That it is divided. B. That it is patheitcally weak. C. That that congress is your best friend because they are not united with the president following their own foreign policy and constantly advocating defeat and withdrawl. Such an enemy given enough resources is VERY defeatable.
People like him and Nancy Pelosi are politicians of the worst order that are willing to divide the govt during a time of war purely for their hatred of political enemies and their percieved political advantage.
2007-04-26 17:15:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's because we tend to stick more to the rules of war and they are breaking them all. We could have taken these bastards down by now if we didn't have Americans fighting for their rights.
They can bomb a market place and Americans would say "what do you expect, we started a useless war in their country." Yet if we did the same thing then we'll be morally and legally wrong.
The terrorists also have another advantage... They're dressed like everyone else.
2007-04-26 16:55:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
not really the same as russia in the 80's, the iraqis don't have a superpower backing them. they didn;t beat us militarily but we can't win that way, same thing in ireland when britain finally decided to talk instead of kill because that was getting them nowhere.
2007-04-26 16:53:45 · answer #6 · answered by the 2nd woody 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The AK-47 is simple. Easy to fix. And I its fairly accurate. Also packs a punch.
Its cheap to make and easy to find.
Quite frankly the AK may be the best automatic rifle of our age.
2007-04-26 16:53:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
We have lost the war politically, no militarily. Al-congress has guaranteed our eventual defeat and the consequent downfall of the American nation.
2007-04-26 17:10:15 · answer #8 · answered by Mad Roy 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Osuma Bin Louden said in one of his video tapes that the war in Iraq was already won and all they have to do is keep fighting. The Americans would either have to go home or go bankrupt.
2007-04-26 16:57:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because insurgents have no respect for life...they have no rules...they no longer care who dies, whether innocent children or their own life or their people's lives lost in the war, they no longer value them. So, they just keep on bombing and bombing and bombing...That makes it hard for the US military, because they have rules, they have respect for the innocent, so when these insurgents run into the skirts of innocents, US military man can no longer chase them...
2007-04-26 17:50:05 · answer #10 · answered by alien 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
you cant beat someone willing to die so readily for their cause. and the same as the Vietnamese beating the French and the US back in the day
2007-04-26 16:52:51 · answer #11 · answered by Kevy 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋