it may come as a shock to libs but if we just stay and fight we could win.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070503/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_shadow_state
2007-05-03 09:54:10 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes our guys do wonderful don't they?But did you also notice what Col.Sutherland said about food shipments not arriving due to the corrupt Iraqi government?Hmmm I guess our president again won't hear anything from the troops about the government he helped place in Iraq.
2007-05-03 10:10:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's one battle, dude. This one worked. But like the article said, the terrorists are going to pop up somewhere else in the country or city of Baghdad. The problem or issue has never been the soldiers doing their job. The issue is that Rumsfeld never secured Baghdad or the country of Iraq in the beginning and that's what has lead to the failure of Bush's policies. The administration was too arrogant to admit they needed more troops from the beginning. I think that is very apparent in the last line of the article:
"Al-Qaida 'had months and months to run rampant because we didn't have the forces available to come in here until now,' Parsons said. 'They controlled this neighborhood, but they don't anymore.' "
Your article has proven the point of liberals all along. That Bush's policies hadn't worked before. It is about 6 months too early to tell if they will work now. But the problem in Iraq is not just Al queda. A huge part of it is Muqtada al-Sadr with the Shiites and his militia and his ties to the government in Iraq and Iran. there are no loyalties to the country of Iraq within the current Iraqie government and security. Their loyalty is with Al Sadr. And, our government with it's current policies is funding his militia inadvertantly through the Iraqi government with weapons and money. They could be using it against our own soldiers. Especially since he has declared America the enemy and to open fire on Americans when they see them.
In other words, this war is way more complex than this one town that was taken over by Al queda.
I wish the policies would work. Why? Because I think it is appalling what this administration has done to the people of Iraq. We didn't need to invade the country. Al Queda wasn't there and Saddam was not a threat. Like I said before, it is way too early to see if the troop increase will work or not. But just remember, since the troop surge, alot more troops died in April than in previous months. We certainly have not won yet.
2007-05-03 17:20:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Great, one Iraqi district in 4 years of war. Sounds like a great strategy to me.
2007-05-03 17:07:01 · answer #3 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It would help if you would define "win"...
At what point do you believe we could ever bring the troops home?
2007-05-03 17:06:29 · answer #4 · answered by Blackacre 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
What constitutes winning?
2007-05-03 17:11:43 · answer #5 · answered by Garth Rocket 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
war on terror=not possible to win.
it's very simple, you can't defeat an idea with military force...unless we kill every single terrorist in the world we are still at threat...it's something we'll have to live with unless we kill all of them...which is impossible.
2007-05-03 17:01:37 · answer #6 · answered by Paulien 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
To a liberal, the idea of winning and losing is whether we lose any soldiers. To that extent, they will never admit winning a tough war.
2007-05-03 17:01:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
hey wingnut!...Petraeus won't be giving his report until september. might you be a bit premature?
2007-05-03 17:01:26 · answer #8 · answered by bilez1 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋