the leader is dead, thier army dead and we are in the middle of rebuilding iraq so our enemies can not regroup. please explain how this does not count as a win?
2007-05-03
16:59:20
·
17 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Military
please explain, really I'm begging you! I thought destroying your enemies army and leader means you win.
2007-05-03
17:03:07 ·
update #1
so rather than answer my question every bush basher is going to take a shot at me? nice real mature.
2007-05-03
17:05:51 ·
update #2
an army parade is being held may 19 in scranton pa, at 10:30 AM.
2007-05-03
17:10:32 ·
update #3
I meant the war not the occupation.
2007-05-03
17:11:11 ·
update #4
We illegally invaded a sovereign country, forced them to kill their leader, even paid them to do it. His trial was a farce. We are killing tens of thousands of innocent women and children and men. We have destroyed the country. They no longer have any security. They have no running water, no hospitals, very few doctors, no schools, no electricity, no telephone service. My God we bombed them back to the stone age. That's also what we threghtened to do to other countries who disagreed with our illegal and immoral actions.
We have lost thousands of American troops for no purpose and no gain (except to Bush and his cronies). They won't even tell us how many have been maimed The world hates us. Terrorism is up 25 %. The Iraqis now hate us and want to kill us. Please explain how this could count as any kind of win.
2007-05-03 17:03:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by lcmcpa 7
·
8⤊
3⤋
Your right the war ended when Bush said "mission Accomplished" but the day after the occupation began and that is what is not going so good because the corporate royalist want to make Iraq the perfect little conservative Libertarian country and the Iraqis will not have it and the Iraqi middle class will not return from Jordan etc. because of it. Not to mention that Iraqis are not the people that attacked us on 911 including Saddam, it was the Iraqis job to remove Saddam just like we did with the British. Germany would of done the same in WWII but the German people thought they were going to get freedom, sound familler?
2007-05-04 00:10:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
7⤊
0⤋
The things we won in Iraq, we are now destroying by our occupation. We are costing more lives, and aggravating more people, citizens of Iraq, with our presence over there. It is more like an invasion than a rebuilding. Innocent citiziens are being constantly harassed, put out of their homes and towns, and invaded with home searches which would have Americans screaming on the evening news and suing entire cities for millions of dollars if they did this even once to some of our better families.
We do this daily over there. And there is the language and religious differences. Everyday, they have to hear someone with a different accent give them orders instead of allowing them to return to previously known way of life.
Extreme groups of theirs are arising, because of the exreme harassment. Our being there has threatened the men to again enforce prehistoric rules on women in outlying areas. Leave enough as it is. If they are starving, they will get help. We are encouraging them to build bombs, to further injure our own children, and to make entire generations pay when we can just walk away now.
In our country, there is so much enlightenment on anger management, and domestic violence, why can't we just walk away from Iraq. Are we conditioning our men here to become mindless robots with their anger management, etc, so they are walked all over when the time comes, they no longer recognize the basic instinct to protect our country out of justifiable anger and protect our own citizens and families.
Let's quit Iraq while we can walk away victors in a war which destroyed so much over weapons of mass destruction which didn't exist.
2007-05-04 00:46:43
·
answer #3
·
answered by Marissa Di 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
okay, we won the war against Saddam Hussein. but we still have not won the war in Iraq. there's a key difference. first, we fought a mobile conventional war with the Republican Guards. but once saddam fell and we became an army of occupation, we started losing, and still are. maybe we could have won if our forces had been prepared for occupation, but they weren't. they thought the occupation would be taken over by a UN force. so we won the first round, but we are currently losing the second. understand now?
2007-05-06 21:47:46
·
answer #4
·
answered by F-14D Super Tomcat 21 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
The Invasion/ground war was won!...afterwards, the occupation/country rebuild has been a mess...!
Problem is most people can NOT distinguish between the war AND the occupation...2 separate stages of our involment in Iraq, and think it is one and the same, it is not!
so to say we won the war is correct, but given that the occupation has gone so bad (due to mismanage in a grand scale) you can also say that the Iraq venture is not over, and it is not looking good at all right now.
ultimately it will all be judged according on how the occupation ends up.
2007-05-04 00:21:44
·
answer #5
·
answered by Krytox1a 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
Iraq is in a worse condition now than it was before. It is an absolute mess there! There has been no victory. Iraq's standard of living is far below what it was before the war started. Winning would also involve no more fighting! Many people are still dying, and it's getting worse. This is not winning. The battles continue.
2007-05-04 00:03:55
·
answer #6
·
answered by Enceladus 5
·
7⤊
1⤋
We weren't supposed to win, the Iraqi people were supposed to win...until their lives are better, no one "won". Rebuilding is no longer possible because the contractors in charge are skimming the $ and construction is shoddy. 9 billion in reconstruction money just ....lost.
We are the enemy over there because we ruined their country, they have less electricity, water, gas than under Sadaam, and they want us out. This wasn't supposed to be a war that we win, it was supposed to be a liberation.
2007-05-04 00:18:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by dan b 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
But we found NO WMD's. We found NO link between Saddam and bin Laden. We started a civil war in a country. We get dozens of Iraqi civilians killed EVERY DAY. We lose AMERICAN LIVES on a daily basis. We spend BILLIONS of dollars a day on a war that ended 4 years ago. The list goes on. What more do you want?
2007-05-04 00:10:05
·
answer #8
·
answered by Cheez_Mastah 3
·
5⤊
1⤋
Gee -- what were doing when this come about. I must have blinked. Gosh darn.
Pray tell -- did you win a Hush Puppy?
I'm still shaken. When, did the powers that be, find out why they were in Iraq fighting a non-existent war.
I wonder how we won a war against, uhm, gee, who were we fighting anyway? Oh of course, we beat the heck out of ?? Well some body I forgot to tell us why we were in Iraq. I thought that the Prez was up to something. Like a day on the beach - Rum and Coke don't yuh know.
Let's see -- oh my God look at all the wrecked buildings! Must have been one heck of a coming out party.
Yeah, you think?
Well it seems that some bully got his nose out of joint and pissed into the wind atop the World Trade Centre and the wind or air planes crashed into the towers and both collapsed in a nice pan cake style and Iraq, out of the blue, got Iraq invaded for WMD that were not there or even thought of being there and, what the heck. let's invade Iraq and screw up Iraqis lives forever because it was a fun thing to do.
But, what about all the dead in 9/11 - the forgotten. There was a smidgen of searching in Afghanistan for al Queda and the investigation, having come across vacated caves, that were abandoned, and were thought to be hiding - training - places they thought were instramental in the 9/11 horror.
Then not much happened. The US continued to beat up on Iraq in an almost unilateral war on terror in a country not associated with 9/11 that was, in no way, connected to 9/11 or in other ways seen to behave as linked with any one of interest in 9/11.
We are now in fighting the Talaban in Afghanistan. A mild little war, quite happily not in Iraq.
So now we are still at war (looking for al Queda) in Iraq where we knew al Queda weren't. until now and Afghanistan where we knew there was evidence of terrorists from before but we looked into this as a side issue.
Remember now -- this all came about because of 9/11. I would really hate to have to tell the loved ones, of the people killed in 9/11, the truth that, all that's going on, that we are unable to unravel the questions, about 9/11, because we're too busy with other screw-ups:
We are not focusing on 9/11 because ???
We are mired in Iraq that has nothing to do with 9/11 at all (tell me how, in many minds, Iraq and 9/11 became attached to the war with the Talaban).
Why is most of the war in the Middle East tied to the US and the UK.. And oil. Did US interests become entwined with multi national oil? I can guess. - won't you?
FOA -- golly gee. When are you people, so enraptured with your selves, insist on being so darned uninformed. How can you flail about, like a fish out of water, with the idea that you don't need to understand or investigate what is going on, heck, it doesn't matter. It does matter. As a child of the 21st century it is your responsibility to know how messed up so many Americans are in this world of today. You continue to surprise us with so many pieces of miss-information that you are scarey.
here's some questions---
Who did 9/11?
Why was Iraq invaded?
Did Saddam used gas on the Kurds and the Iranians while being bolstered by the US?
Did Bush and Osama meet regularly?
Why wasn't Saudi Arabia invaded? They were more involved with Osama and his crew than all of the rest of the Middle East.
On 9/11 why did Bush treat 9/11 as more of a photo shoot then a horror. (he had to stop in and get the right ensemble before visiting ground zero. (oy -- if Bush continues this way maybe it will be a real 'ground zero) We can only hope for the best.)
Garrett B -- yeah war is great as long as the other side is doing the dying. Its kind of crappy if the other side shoots back. Who let those other guys have guns too? Quite unfair .Why do you think war is OK if you can be fully armed against unarmed people. So the way gets a bit nasty and you want to go home. Cry a little bit for me?
How can we determine a winner in the contest of who can we kill the most?
Did we, however gross, do what we intended to do in Iraq? That's got to be a an easy question! We went into Iraq guns a'blazing to -------? Well we're still not sure - something to do with 9/11 maybe. I guess - oh, wait a moment, the buldings fell and we invaded Iraq - Iraqis must have been up on the stage playing musical chairs and ( oh heck -- I don't know ask the Iraqis) Unlike Bush this was more than a little photo shoot. People died because the Americans involed, wanted a fight - but not a big a fight - can't have our boys bruised.!. Poor old Bushwhacker and cronies - got their little war and people died for their enjoyment. Talk to go back to the ranch and share few full bubblies while each of soldiers wished to be home sometime soon. A Nero style rip-off.
It seems to me that the Republicans want the Democrats to bail them out sometime - but not now, and the Democrat's plan seems to be to pull out now and the Iraqis can hope for the best.
Oh - good night and watch out for all those bomb-bugs. Sweet dreams.
2007-05-04 00:43:28
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
There are no winners when it comes to war. Saddam may be defeated but, there is no happy ending
2007-05-04 07:21:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋