English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If we cut and run Iraq will collapse into a terrorist breeding failed state (plus the world will know we've failed).

It should also be obvious to anyone with half a brain that we are not winning now, and can't ever win with the current level of troops.

Why can't everyone (including the generals) just admit the obvious - only the draft and at least 500,000 troops on the ground can win this war.

2007-05-17 10:21:41 · 29 answers · asked by SS 1 in Politics & Government Politics

29 answers

Why don't you define "win" first.

2007-05-17 10:24:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

at the peak of the Vietnam war the US had over 700,000 troops in Vietnam, we also dumped over 2,300,000,000 tons of explosives on that country, which is more than all the explosuves that were used in WW2 (including the atomic explosions in Japan) and guess what, we still lost.
You cant win a war when you are hated and an occupier of foregn land, far from home. We can institute a draft and send another half a million soldiers into Iraq, but unless we are willing to take massive casualties and spend billions upon billions more on this war it is unlikely that we will ever succeed. That and as long as we stay in that country we will continue to be targeted by every arab who ever had a family member killed due to our policies, which at this point is every other Iraqi.

As Vietnam showed, even a full commitment is not always enough. People want to be free, and we are now the occupier, the oppressor, the bully. We may not see it that way, but the people of the middle east do, and what they see and beleive is far more important and relevant then what we here, safe in our country think.

2007-05-17 17:35:06 · answer #2 · answered by brad p 2 · 3 0

What do you mean by "win"? Violence breeds violence. It is all a vicious circle. As long as we stay in Iraq, the radical groups will still continue to fight. If they continue to fight, so will we. If we reinstate the draft, that will only make the insurgents fight harder. While I most certainly do not agree with their ideals, they are fighting for their country. We are fighting for what someone says is right. Personally, I don't see what gave us the right to invade Iraq.

And what about the Iraqi civillians? Not all Iraqis are terrorists. There are families and people just like us over there who are never mentioned. Really, how would you feel if some foreign country decided to invade your homeland and have its military forces patroling your neighborhood.

Besides, how do you KNOW that Iraq will be a failed state. There is a distinct difference between knowing and thinking.

Like I said before, violence breeds violence. If things continue the way the are going, we will NEVER leave Iraq. I don't want my future children to know why we fought in an unjust war.

2007-05-17 17:37:18 · answer #3 · answered by Rinnalaiss 2 · 1 0

We won't have a draft in the near future because Bush promised that there would not be a draft as long as he was president. By not winning you must mean we are losing which is hardly true unless you believe anything that Harry Reid says and he is hardly an expert on things that concern the military. Our success in Iraq depends on how fed up the Iraqi people get, not with the US, but with their neighbors, Iran and Syria, that are supplying the roadside bombs, arms and munitions that are killing innocent Iraqi civilians and Americans alike.

If the war against the Islamic extremists gets worse, and I don't necessarily mean in Iraq, then the next president may have to enact the military draft like LBJ did back in 1965. I t would be ironic if the next president is a democrat and is the one to introduce the draft.

2007-05-17 18:03:21 · answer #4 · answered by John W 5 · 1 1

We couldn't win in Iraq if we had 500,000,000 ground troops to spare. The Iraqis are going to fight to the last man, woman, and child to get our invading army out of their country. Its funny how you claim that Iraq will collapse into a terrorist breeding country, especially considering how we went into Iraq in the first place to remove one of the staunchest opponents of terrorism in the Middle East, a dictator who refused to let Al-Qaida in his country by the name of Saddam Hussein.

We shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place. We've strengthened terrorism by staying there. Osama's recruiting has picked up since the start of the War. Osama's now in Iraq for the first time ever and he's got us over there where he can attack us easier. Every day we remain in Iraq, we become less safe. There is no National Guard anymore and the United States of America is utterly defenseless. The terrorists could attack us here if they wanted to (rather than just ending up framed for a phony "plot" by the FBI).

The Draft is slavery. If the War were justified, there would be no shortage of people willing to sign up voluntarily (as most of the soldiers in World War II did).

Do you remember how we said we wouldn't let the terrorists take away our freedom after 9/11? Now we've got the Patriot Act and we've legalized torture. Our president illegally wiretaps American citizens. The government can detain anybody they want, for as long as they want, without any cause. We've allowed America to turn into a de facto fascist dictatorship. Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini used similar propaganda to wage wars against non-enemies.

America deserves better than a government that is willing to stoop to the lowest lows under the pretense of "protecting" freedom.

Look at what happened in the Republican debate the other night. The supposed "conservatives" glorified gun-grabbing liberals such as McCain, Giuliani, and Romney and vilified a true conservative named Ron Paul (he's the most fiscally conservative in the race and also the strongest supporter of the 2nd Amendment).

The right wing in this country is willing to nominate liberals for president just because they support militarism abroad. Woodrow Wilson supported the same nonsense during the 1910s and all he did was cause World War II through his stupidity.

2007-05-17 17:41:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

The size of the military actually can be increased without the Draft. The military was able to put that many troops on the ground in the first gulf war without the draft, for instance. The reason it can't now? Two words: Peace Dividend.

2007-05-17 17:25:56 · answer #6 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1 1

So... slavery is the answer?

I don't know, encouraging the government to enslave young people for an unpopular war just seems wrong somehow. Maybe it has to do with some lingering desire for freedom that hasn't quite been squelched yet.

Now, sending all of Congress and about 90% of government employees in D.C. sounds better. At least they're already voluntarily taking government money. And the Congressmen would do less damage to the U.S. if they are in Iraq.

2007-05-17 17:52:45 · answer #7 · answered by enoriverbend 6 · 2 0

Absolutely no draft! As a military person with over 20 years of service I want only those who want to defend freedom fighting next to me. Several years ago I would have been in favor of everyone being required to serve their country, but in today's climate, with so many people who despise their own country, I don't want to have to worry about some misguided misfit stabbing me in the back. Leave them here or let them move to another country. We volunteers will carry the load for them, as we have in the past.

2007-05-17 17:46:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

B Kevork, THe reason we could put that many troops down in the first gulf war was because it was before the creator of 911 took power. Bill Clinton not only ignored 5 direct terrorist attacks against the US, he cut the military to a third of its size. I being of military draft age welcome the draft, its a good idea. Thank you Bill Clinton, 911 was great, but stripping the military of its manpower even better.

2007-05-17 17:29:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

Yeah right! Perhaps should start with George, Dick, Ronald...White House Administration...Oh, Royal Family (Prince Harry almost) even Blair who soon out of job!

2007-05-17 17:46:18 · answer #10 · answered by Hjay 1 · 3 0

I couldn't agree more! Let's begin the party with the Bush Twins and Chaney's daughter and then followed with children of wealthy!

2007-05-17 17:34:12 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers