Maybe we can get an answer on yahoo, since the president can't answer this question....
2007-07-12 09:38:38 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
For the President it means a government that we can tell what to do, appearing to be elected by the people.
But that cannot be gotten by fighting a war, and Bush thinks it can.
A moral victory would be to apologize for the destruction we caused; to provide assistance to people devastated by what we have already done, and successful support to independent democratic political movements so a representative government functions. That may be impossible in a unified Iraq. And the rub is that most people there seem to want a very rigid form of Islam, one that is connected with dominance over women and terrorism. It is really not right or left, but fundamentalist or not.
So there is no real military victory, and maybe no political victory. I only know that the longer we stay, the more we lose, including the lives of Americans and Iraqis.
2007-07-12 09:49:11 · answer #1 · answered by gilpers302 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
i think of the victory grow to be scuffling with an Al-Qaeda takeover, and ending sectarian violence. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is in actuality destroyed, and there finally seems to be some degree of peace between the Iraqi government and the Sadrists. Now, we can gradually draw down our troop stages. we've in actuality already performed this victory. it incredibly is not WW2. we're not celebrating VJ day with parades interior the streets. we are quietly making waiting to bypass away.
2016-12-10 10:12:41 · answer #2 · answered by meran 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The establishment of a relatively stable, pro-American democracy in the nation.
...yeah, that'll happen... It was a little more plausible when it was getting rid of WMDs (hey that was easy, nothing but a couple of rusty chlorine gas canisters - too bad Saddam didn't give the inspectors freer access, we wouldn't have had to do this), or getting rid of Saddam. Of course, anything looks easier once it's been accomplished...
2007-07-12 09:55:20 · answer #3 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think that would depend on ones definition of victory. As for winning the war? At the risk of sounding cliche, there are no winners in war.
Nonetheless, regardless of ones defintion is, I believe that any oppotunity for victory has passed.
2007-07-12 09:49:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Oooo oooo! I know! I know!
Complete de-population of the region! If we are very lucky, we may even get an Al Qaeda cell or two among all the women, children, puppies and kittens.
But then, you have to smash a few infants to make a profitable venture for Halliburton, docha know?
2007-07-12 09:42:31 · answer #5 · answered by Grendle 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
bush LOST iraq the day he invaded.
The closest the USA can get to a victory is getting our troops out of there!
2007-07-12 10:14:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think victory was achieved the moment Saddam was hanged. It's up to the Iraqis to rebuild their own country and run their own government, not us.
2007-07-12 10:26:12 · answer #7 · answered by Eukodol 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Victory will be considered when america has control of all the oil and all of our uk troops have been maimed or killed in a war that is not thiers
2007-07-12 09:41:28 · answer #8 · answered by Dave g 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
"Victory" means we have, or our troops have, "fulfilled and accomplished our mission", BUT, since our mission is never defined, and seems to change by the day, I doubt if we will ever see the arrival of the so-called victory.
Please, don't hold your hand over your butt waiting.
2007-07-12 09:52:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Either it is all out war, pussyfooting around like we have been or pulling out! This is a war of ideology and we need a new approach. Maybe you have an answer?
2007-07-12 09:41:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋