Imagine this:
The war started to dramatically improve: deaths went down, attacks became less frequent, schools started functioning, local Iraqi governments begin to establish order, etc. Also, the American people began to approve of the progress made, and other countries began to recognize the improvement.
Would you support this scenario?
(Even if it is hypothetical, and even if you believe it is far-fetched, humor me, I am trying to understand your viewpoint.)
2007-05-26 05:37:36 · 21 answers · asked by Sleeck 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You need to understand that from the moment John Kerry woke up and decided to be anti war during the 2004 race for the White House, that democrats have been bashing EVERYTHING we do in Iraq. Therefore any success for our troops means failure for them. So why would they chear for the success of something they are dead set against in the first place?
2007-05-26 05:44:16 · answer #1 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 6⤋
No red blooded American wants to see things in Iraq keep
going down hill. To keep 200,000 troops over there to
control several million with more insurgents coming in every
day is nothing less than unrealistic. Why in the hell don't these
"know it all" people study up on the crusades to that part of the
world starting around the year 996? Instead of putting down
those of us who don't want to repeat the mistakes of the past.
What do you think will win the victory short of genocide over
there? That's not on the table but it should be considered if
we really want to win over there.
2007-05-26 13:21:30 · answer #2 · answered by wayne g 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What exactly would be victory? If you want democracy you ought to get out (when has an occupied country been democratic?). If you want their oil, get used to fighting the Iraqi people for it.
Blessed be the peacemakers.
edit: Henry, I usually agree with you. And i do now too. The US needs to get out. But i want a reference that people in the Middle East have been any more violent in their history than Europeans have been. My heart goes to you First World liberals, but don't forget that you live in an empire, that spawned from another empire and that your country invaded another country to subdue its rebellious leader.
Let's be clear that the US OWES it to the Iraqi people to get out. All this talk about American deaths may be good to convince Middle America, but it cannot be said in good consience when there are people out there denying that 655 000 Iraqis have died as a result of US imperialism.
2007-05-26 12:47:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
I'm a registered independent - and I would be very happy to see success in Iraq.
Unfortunately, that's a neo-con pipe dream. Short of starting a draft, and actually having sufficient troops, equipment, and most importantly: A PLAN FOR SUCCESS, then this war will just drag on through the rest of Dubya and Dick's second term, and will be passed on to the next president - very likely to be a Democrat, at which time the cons will blame the whole clusterf**k on that dem president.
2007-05-26 12:47:55 · answer #4 · answered by Joe M 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I'm not a Democrat, but I'm liberal, which I'm sure you consider one in the same.
Funny how all the conservatives/Republicans who answered for the Democrats all got the Democrats' responses wrong.
I bet you the Democrats cheered the first time we declared victory (Mission Accomplished!) and will do so when victory is achieved again.
When we can define victory and tie that to leaving Iraq, everyone will be cheering.
2007-05-26 13:05:54 · answer #5 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Only if it is true. Is next to impossible to really know what is happening there. You will never see the majority of the American people supporting this quagmire. Its not even clear why we invaded and occupied this weakly defended country in the first place. I would celebrate if we held Bush and his PNAC neocons responsible for war crimes.
2007-05-26 12:54:03 · answer #6 · answered by planksheer 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That's victory? We could have achieved all the things you just mentioned by leaving Saddam in power. So, if we could turn back the clock and stay out of Iraq, then yes - I would be in support of the outcome.
We can still win this - we just need to lower the bar as to what we consider "victory", which I'm sure Bush will.
2007-05-26 12:53:07 · answer #7 · answered by na n 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Absolutely as soon as we know when victory is and how to define it. Everyone talks about winning but not one of them can tell me when we know we have won. If all the things you say were to happen we would no longer have need to be there. We could come home. However the reality is that none of that is likely to happen for a decade or more whether we are there or not why not come home and let them sort it out as they have for over 3000 years?
2007-05-26 12:45:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
I don't consider myself a democrat, but I'll take a shot at this one. Democrats have been criticizing the complete custer fluck Bushco has made of Iraq.
Why would it be a defeat for them if Iraq actually started to get it's act together?
2007-05-26 13:08:04 · answer #9 · answered by Mark in Boulder 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Hey after that maybe the Fed deficit would magically disappear, there would be new proven oil reserves in Texas, a big fence that could block hurricanes from the Gulf could be put up, .... pigs would start flying....
2007-05-26 13:12:30 · answer #10 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would welcome a "victory" in Iraq...I would be happy if the Iraqis stood up and took their country and that the different sects decided to cooperate and create a country....but I doubt that will happen because fanatical Muslims are like the Taliban and will not be satisfied until they are ruled not by a system of legislated laws but by the Koran.
2007-05-26 12:43:51 · answer #11 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋