If Bush said "Mission Accomplished" four years ago? Since when is ending an occupation surrendering?
2007-04-27 08:31:32 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It wouldn't.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." --Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) on Clinton's actions in Bosnia.
2007-04-27 08:34:14 · answer #1 · answered by MishMash [I am not one of your fans] 7 · 8⤊ 6⤋
I think there is a misunderstanding about what we are doing in Iraq, the war for us IS over, we are not AT war, but are involved in war, our mission, now that Saddam has been removed and executed by his peers, is to train the Iraqi military so they can fight for their own freedom and if we leave without accomplishing the mission, then we are surrendering the Iraqi military and all the Iraqi people to the insurgents and because of their terrorism ways, we cannot let that happen, not only for the people of Iraq, but for our safety as well. My son is over there helping with the training of the Iraqi soldiers and helping them fight the insurgents, and granted the Iraqi people don't want us there, but they don't want us to leave just yet either. We will accomplish our mission before we leave, the Iraqi soldiers will let us know that they no longer need us, and when that happens, mission will be accomplished.
2007-04-27 15:52:18 · answer #2 · answered by robotchic 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The "war" is not ours to lose, at this point. The mission was to liberate the Iraqi people from the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein, which we did. The mission (whichever variant that you subscribe to, actually) also was to instate a new Iraqi government, which we also have done.
Remember all the Iraqis voting and how unprecedented it was?
Remember all the purple fingers waving in the air?
Remember how the Iraqis defied threats of terrorism and protested against terrorism, etc?
Ok, that was the mission. Mission Accomplished.
The war is over. However, we're now occupying the nation and that's not something that can be won or lost. The Iraqis have a constitution and a military and they need to get it in gear and get up off their feet since we can't be expected to hold their hands forever.
2007-04-27 15:51:32 · answer #3 · answered by Phillybits 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
OK, technically it wouldn't be surrendering, it would be sacrificing the Iraqi people to the likes of Iran and Syria who have sworn to remove Israel from the face of the earth and to cause the fall of the United States. Since the radical Islamic Ideologies of those countries are not real big fans of democracy, I'm sure it wouldn't take long for one or both to march in. It is in our national interest to have a stable democracy capable of defending itself before we do a troop draw down and to maintain a stabilizing military presence after that point.
2007-04-27 15:43:10 · answer #4 · answered by Jim 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Leaving Iraq will tell the terrorists that the US does not have
the will to fight. Once they know that they will bring the war
to us.
MishMash;
When Nixon was involved with Watergate, Bill Clinton said
"Any President that lies to the American people for any reason whatsoever, he should do the honorable thing and resign" Why didn't he do it after lying about Monica?
2007-04-27 15:43:09 · answer #5 · answered by justgetitright 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
How would leaving Iraq NOT be surrendering? Missions Accomplished referred to removing Saddam from power. I think we can all agree that mission was accomplished, and that the war is not over.
2007-04-27 15:34:45 · answer #6 · answered by Pfo 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋
will bush have to hand over his sword on the deck of the Missouri? would bush be forced to sign a treaty? would we have to forfeit all of our military assets? will the victors have bush tried for war crimes?
hell, no.
will al queda tanks be rolling down pennsylvania avenue? will al queda storm the beaches of Miami? will the mighty al queda air force strafe our busy highways?
hell, no.
we have the best equipped military in the world. we have one of the worlds largest militaries. we cannot defeat a group of terrorists in a country of 20 million people. do you think that al queda can come over here and defeat a heavily armed country of 300 million?
its all bullsh*t. they cannot kill us all. they cannot take over our country and turn us all into muslems. yeah, we will probably get some attacks. they might blow up a bridge or a tunnel, they might shoot up a mall, they might bomb a train. i dont see what is stopping them now. evidently, they dont want to too badly because its plenty of guns, ammunition and bomb material available everywhere here. getting across the border is no problem, a million mexicans do it every year.
2007-04-27 16:03:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I guess we have to surrender and let the Iraqis come take over our govt. They can sail over on thier bombed out buicks and storm the capital with thier AK 47's. We're doomed! Doomed i tell you!
2007-04-27 15:39:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, you have armed insurgents trying to drive the US out of Iraq so they can take over the country. When the US complies with the demands of the enemy it's fighting by leaving, that would be a form of capitualation not unlike a conditional surrender.
2007-04-27 15:37:28 · answer #9 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
I don't know. And you can't surrender someone else's war, either. The war in Iraq is not ours.
2007-04-27 15:39:27 · answer #10 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It wouldn't. We can just leave it to the al-Maliki government. They WANT to ally with Iran. The Bush War of Terror on Iraq has backfired and all we can do now is continue to bleed for nothing or cut our losses.
2007-04-27 15:36:21 · answer #11 · answered by Timothy M 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋