Is it because they prematurely declared that the U.S. and allies have already lost?
If the battle in Iraq can not be won, then, what sort of battle can the U.S. and allies win?
I'm really baffled. I've never seen people so eager to annonce to the world that they are losers.
Your thoughts please. Explain, please.
-Thanks.
2007-07-26 06:17:01 · 10 answers · asked by mark623112 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
they don't appear to be so eager....
They are eager...
2007-07-26 06:20:36 · answer #1 · answered by nena_en_austin 5 · 6⤊ 3⤋
There should not have been a battle in Iraq
In the END bullies never win. We had no right going over there telling those how to live their lives,and they resent us for it. They don't want us over there. If they did, they would help get rid of the scum no matter what it took. You better believe somebody knows who they are. When and where things are going to happen. Whose having secret meetings. But they're not telling or doing anything to prevent these massacres. Before they blow their selves up these people are staying with somebody. Hell, it's the desert. You can't just stroll in miles from nowhere.Our boys are at a great disadvantage. How can they tell a Sunni from a Shiite unless they tell them who they are. Then there Al - Queda[the ones we were suppose to be fighting.[ where's Ben Laden]?
The troops dying or if they're Lucky coming home with horrible injuries[whereas they'll never be the same] We have no allies in this so-called WAR.[Our allies didn't agree with us going over there in the first place] We're spending 10 billion dollars a month over there. Money that could be used for a lot of constructive things over here. Like feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless. Aiding small businesses, in order to create more jobs. Finding a cure for Aides.
If you think we should stay over there why haven't you joined? Or your brother,sister,father uncle. The Troops have families that want to see home.Out of harms way.
2007-07-26 08:10:43 · answer #2 · answered by Josephine C 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Maybe because it has turned into a civil war like MANY scholars said it would?
Remember Vietnam? A little over 30 years ago the same thing happened and the countries are still there. We stuck our noses in an area which had nothing to do with the "war on terror" and we are now paying that price.
2007-07-26 06:33:48 · answer #3 · answered by Fedup Veteran 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It is impossible for us to "lose" the battle in Iraq for the same reason it is impossible for us to "win" the battle in Iraq.
The terms "win" and "lose" become meaningless, since we are the only ones defining our goals, and we're the only ones determining if we've met those goals.
We can declare victory at any point, because the only defined goal was "Mission Accomplished" four years ago -- the desposing of Saddam. Other than that, we're just hanging around playing police and babysitter.
Since nobody has defined any other "win" -- we have no way to measure our progress towards that goal to determine if we've achieved it or failed.
Even the most common example -- namely achieving a stable govt in Iraq -- is not something we can do. It's up to the Iraqi govt to do that (or fail to do that), and we cannot do it for them. So, we cannot "win" or "lose" -- we can only hang around until we've decided we've done enough.
2007-07-26 06:21:16 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 9⤊ 3⤋
Prematurely?
Saying the declaration is premature is like saying giving birth to a baby in the 11th month is "premature."
We've been in Iraq for several years now.
The excuses are getting lame.
It's time for Bush to swallow his pride and see the reality that his little quagmire is causing more harm than good, and that there is no way to win it.
2007-07-26 06:21:49 · answer #5 · answered by ck4829 7 · 6⤊ 2⤋
Nothing less than politics. They need a loss in order for them to win. It is sad and unfortunate. They didnt even give good faith to the surge that they voted to authorize. The surge hadn't even been implemented and they were slamming it. If this doesnt show the American people their true motives, there is little hope for us.
2007-07-26 06:21:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
Because the worse things are in Iraq the better their chances of taking the presidency. No concern for national security, and I'd bet most of the Democrats are all too happy to hear about US casualties.
Funny how they all say we need to fight AlQaida wherever they are, but they want us to leave Iraq, where AlQaida is currently focused. Sad that so many US citizens don't recognize this.
2007-07-26 06:22:57 · answer #7 · answered by heavysarcasm 4 · 4⤊ 6⤋
The obvious answer is: they hate America
They are invested in defeat. They want us to lose and suffer more terrorist attacks on US soil in the future
They want to abandon the Middle East to the Islamofacist threat and allow despots to gain power. They want Israel to be destroyed
When the USSR fell, their hopes and dreams fell with it. They needed a new ally against US 'hegemony'. And it appears they have found it in radical Islam
2007-07-26 06:20:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 8⤋
They are too deeply invested in our failure at this point. It would kill them in 08 if something good happened in Iraq. They care only about securing power and control and not what is in the best interest of this country , or any other , for that matter.
2007-07-26 06:20:29 · answer #9 · answered by booman17 7 · 7⤊ 8⤋
It helps their party base.
2007-07-26 06:19:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 7⤋