'Terrorists' are not an organized army, which is why you can't beat them with the military, you beat them with the police. We are now fiding out, through successful thwarted terrorist attacks, by the UK and Scotland Yard, that this is the best method for finding and eliminating terrorists. Will the Bush crowd EVER get that you cannot 'surrender' when there is no army, no clear enemy? Do they STILL think that Iraqis are going to greet us in the streets as liberators?
2007-04-27 09:18:18 · 24 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
police, FBI and CIA are included in policework.
2007-04-27 09:23:57 · update #1
using forces for TRAINING is very different than using them to POLICE A CIVIL WAR. How about we send non combat troops and train them, with BENCHMARKS for training, and then withdrawal them too? Don't put words in my mouth...I don;t need the help. I know exactly what i am asking for.
2007-04-27 09:39:46 · update #2
I disagree with one minor point. You do not beat terrorists with police, you beat them with the CIA. But who wants to work for the CIA now, when you can be outed as political retribution.
Edit: okay...nm :)
2007-04-27 09:21:54 · answer #1 · answered by beren 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Some of the things that you have mentioned are probably true. It is a very complex situation.
Terrorists have a much different belief than practically all people in the World.
I'm only guessing, but if the Military is withdrawn from Iraq, the terrorist will become Oil rich.
And their mission is too murder.
No one has answers. President Bush and his administration are doing what they think is best for the US.
Things will change in two years. And no one knows that answer or the outcome.
The important thing to remember is that no one can negotiate with the terrorists' religious beliefs.
2007-04-27 09:38:30 · answer #2 · answered by bob P11 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In this particular Iraq situation with how the war is going, a troop withdrawal wouldn't have to be called a surrender. Withdrawing the troops would be showing mercy towards the U.S. troops still alive and showing mercy on the Iraq civilians that are still living but have had to go through so much more violence than they have ever had to since the war started. I wouldn't consider the withdrawal a surrender. I would say, why keep the troops in there if people will keep on dying and the situation isn't getting any better. Things seem to only be getting worse. No sense in leaving the troops in the middle of a war that should be handled by the people of that country. Afghanastan is where Bin Laden is at. Put more troops over there.
2007-04-27 09:26:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Their trying to call an escalation a "surge". This administration does not know the meaning of negotiation or diplomacy. Calling a withdrawal a "surrender" is ridiculous. Normally when a country surrenders there is some kind of negotiation and surrender papers are signed and like I said, these people don't know the meaning of negotiation. You are right, terrorist attacks are a law enforcement issue. The Clinton administration tracked down and tried the terrorists in both the 1st WTC bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing. Bush gave up on Osama binLaden and started a war that was totally unrelated.
2007-04-27 09:37:20 · answer #4 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No, it's just another political tactic to attach a negative term to something to try to get the American people to stand behind the Bush administration. "Surrender" is bad. But no one has been able to tell me what we'd be surrendering if we left Iraq. We will lose nothing. The Iraqi people will have to learn to be largely self-sufficient.
I have NO problem helping them. Key word being "HELPING." We're doing everything FOR them, according to our own generals, and that's absolutely unacceptable this far into this war.
2007-04-27 09:23:15 · answer #5 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Surrender or not, it still means a defeat and that is unacceptable. You may not mind tucking your tail and running away but most of us Americans don't like it at all. If you want to surrender, you go right ahead, I refuse to stick my butt in the air for any fake god named allah.
2007-04-27 10:54:51 · answer #6 · answered by Erik A 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your right surrender is not the right word. A withdrawal under duress should be worded simply as a defeat.
2007-04-27 09:43:33 · answer #7 · answered by jeff_loves_life 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iraqis are staying there. Call it surrender or just say we are going home. Either way we will leave someday and the Iraqis wil still be there.
2007-04-27 09:23:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
When you are in combat and winning almost every engagement and some political hack tells you that the war is lost and you have to quit and come home, then yes that is surrender. Maybe you should be more in touch with our military!
2007-04-27 09:27:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
the illusion is intentionally created. Either by higher ups or even straight from the grass roots level. It's a baseless argument meant to shame you into cooperation with the group.
2007-04-27 09:24:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋