There is one very simple reason why the US will never win the war in Iraq & that is they will NEVER BE ABLE TO SECURE THE IRAQI BORDERS.
Maybe Bush could possibly win the war in Iraq w/ 300,000 US troops to secure the borders but as we all know that ain't happening.
So to all those Pro Iraq War Americans out there you can whine/fantasize all you want about how the Dems/the lib media are losing the war in Iraq but in reality the #1 reason the US is not winning in Iraq is lack of troops (who can't stop the flow of supplies & terrorists into Iraq).
Now if you still think there is a way to win the war in Iraq other than what I already mentioned you are either a fool or you are mentally retarded. Can't wait to hear what you all have to say.
2007-06-12 15:40:08 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They already won. The war has been over for years and a new democratically elected government is in place. We are trying to help our allies secure the nation and build an army.
2007-06-12 15:43:50 · answer #1 · answered by Brian 7 · 7⤊ 6⤋
I am a veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom and I know that reason we will not win in Iraq is that we are not willing to take the extreme steps to win. Unfortunately the US is pretty much the only country left that even has a rules of engagement to peak of. If the public was willing to allow the military to do whatever is necessary to win, we would have that place locked down in a matter of weeks. Hell, you could give me command of all forces in Iraq and complete freedom to do what I need to do and I'd have Iraq locked down by next weekend. The politicians and public opinion are commanding this war instead of the military. Sometimes you've got to break a few eggs to make an omelet and the US public can't accept that. If the politicians would take the chain off and let the dog loose this war would be over by July.
2007-06-20 06:05:32 · answer #2 · answered by J 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I imagine that there were people in ww2 that didn't think we would win that one either. Oh yes and there was a Party in the Civil war that said we should just admit defeat and let the South go its own way. But we won in spite of the idiots and naysayers. So as far as being retarded or a fool take a good look in the mirror.
2007-06-18 17:17:07 · answer #3 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are correct.
However, I will also submit this one sidebar: If the US had carpet bombed Fallujah for three weeks or so, when they rose up against our troops and then turned to the rest of Iraq and said, "Who's next" the war would already be over.
Those people really don't want to die, no matter how cute those promised virgins might be. Remember their soldiers kissing the feet of our troops in 1991? Nothing has changed.
The USA simply refuses to fight a WAR. The new LBJ (Bush) allowed a new McNamara (Rumsfeld) tell our military how to WIN and they know nothing about how to fight a war, let alone win one.
WAR IS HELL. Bush, like LBJ, never understood this one simple TRUTH. Thank God Roosevelt and Truman did.
2007-06-17 12:14:38 · answer #4 · answered by aviator147 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I don't like your tone, son. But I do see where you're coming from. You know I understand why we have tried this thing, so that Iran doesn't become the biggest influence in the middle east, and so Iraq doesn't become a vacation resort for terrorists. But you're right, the best thing to do would be to seal the border. Now we ALL know what kind of track record the US has with border enforcement, especially under Dubya. I'm with Liebermann.... let's go take care of Iran.
2007-06-12 15:45:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
it seems like winning the war on terrorism is like winning the war on drugs. how do you change people's thoughts and what goes on in their minds? if it's not iraq, then later it will be some other country. where does it stop? isn't it a neverending battle? but honestly, dude, this question makes u sound like a terrorist.
2007-06-20 13:42:40 · answer #6 · answered by shanee h 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my dorm (years ago) we had a "utility" corridor connecting the suites. When one was sprayed the roaches would just travel down the corridor. The analogy strikes me as appropriate.
If the insurgents are flocking in to stone the "devils", it's better than having them fly. If the border is an issue, then change the battle field. Since they need someone to validate their suicides, isn't better there?
2007-06-12 16:19:08 · answer #7 · answered by Wonka 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ever with the boards covered with 1,000,000 boots on the ground this is a action (wars can only be declared by congress) there is still no winning. This is a guerrilla action, that mean one bomb and one body at a time. It means that you never know who is your enemy.
2007-06-12 15:50:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
First president to refuse to take calls from the CIA and his security counsel on a daily basis. First president to show an absolute disinterest in being president. First president to have his mother-in-law living solely off the taxpayer dime inside our WH.
2016-05-18 22:47:11 · answer #9 · answered by luann 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I cannot get over Bush arming the Sunnis who are Taliban. Talk about emboldening the enemy!!!! Let's arm them to kill our soldiers. Any one who thinks they won't, are fools. The US Troops have continually complained about the Iraqi police and troops helping the insurgents and not the US. The arming of the Sunnis will just give the insurgents more guns to use against us.
2007-06-12 15:49:32 · answer #10 · answered by citizenjanecitizenjane2 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Maybe because people said we would never win against Germany and Japan in WW2, but in the end we did.
2007-06-20 07:33:12 · answer #11 · answered by steelersfan2010 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋