Saw all the liberial talking heads yesterday on the news shows. Last month the party line was "We're not winning the fight. This is a civil war and we can't defeat the enemy." Yesterday the line was, "Even if Petrais reports to Congress in September that we're winning the fight, and all indications say we are, unless Iraq meets the political goals, we're wasting our money , troops, and time." My question is, now that the liberials have changed the goals for success in Iraq, is the surge working?
2007-08-06 01:32:36 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
crushinator-----Actually I first heard a democrat on CBS make the statement, yesterday. To which the commentary mentioned the 2 journalist from a liberial newspaper reported that the surge was working.
2007-08-06 01:49:04 · update #1
Absolutely the surge is working. This just makes the libs look like fools... and as usual... they make up a new set of standards, guidlines or rules that are out of reach just so they have something to be unhappy about.
Crush... I wonder if we still have troops stationed in Germany? (the answer would be.... yes) Some people have the moral courage to stay until the job is done... even when it gets hard... others are selfish and just run away.
2007-08-06 01:40:57 · answer #1 · answered by Mr. Perfect 5 · 3⤊ 7⤋
This president has no purpose of leaving Iraq. we've already spent plenty money on Iraq and lost such distinctive infantrymen there. Why end now? we've extra contractors in Iraq than we do infantrymen. This conflict ended on might 2, 2003, while Bush declared an end to considerable protection rigidity operations. The previous 5 years in Iraq have been an occupation. And we by no potential even got here close to to having adequate troops for that. The president's father had 0.5 a million troops waiting to invade Iraq in 1991. Bush Sr knew it is what proportion could be mandatory to occupy a u . s . of that length. yet his son by no potential even seen putting such distinctive troops in there. If he did, we could have left Iraq an prolonged time in the past. we've not got adequate troops to effectively occupy Iraq. And we've extra contractors there than we do infantrymen.
2016-10-09 08:00:27 · answer #2 · answered by cracchiolo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The security situation is temporarily better (I doubt it will last). The political situation, however, may be getting much worse. Just this morning, I saw a story on how there is a strong movement in southern Iraq to form a completely separate nation independent from the rest of Iraq and the problems in Baghdad. I think partitioning the country is now the only realistic solution, not a unified democracy.
2007-08-06 02:22:48 · answer #3 · answered by Jeff P 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It may be 'working', but it sure isn't working for the American wage-earner that has to pay back all the borrowed money so far spent and all the ongoing expenses that will also have to be assumed long after the last troop leaves Iraq. The irony of the entire exercise is that the US isn't any safer because of this Iraqi adventure. The 'war' may have been won....that took less than three weeks, but the occupation isn't. No matter how much you slam the non-existant 'liberal' strawman, objective reality remains the same.....Iraq is a lost cause!
2007-08-06 02:07:16 · answer #4 · answered by Noah H 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
You betcha. Petrais will report in September that it is working. The beginning proof is July being the lowest death toll of American troops in 8 months and we've again killed the leader of Al Qeada in Iraq. That's like the third leader we've killed this year.
2007-08-06 01:43:35 · answer #5 · answered by tigrompy 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Isn't it odd that they have changed the story once again when they see they were wrong. They have the Democratic future riding on us failing in Iraq. They are trying to change the subject so they do not look so weak to us. It is too bad that many will follow blindly with them.
2007-08-06 01:46:26 · answer #6 · answered by meathead 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Yes, we are winning, there was a headline in the newpaper the other day, that had a news report out of Iraq in it.
2007-08-06 01:36:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
a) the goals were set by Bush
b) the only way we'll know if the surge has worked is when we withdraw and Iraqi's get up off the dime and start handling their own business
2007-08-06 01:41:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
the liberals have changed their goals? Silly me I thought the goal was for Iraq to be self governing, which no matter how well our troops are doing isn't going to happen without meeting the political goals, unless of course you just want to leave the troops over their indefinitely. Don't believe everything you see on fox news....
2007-08-06 01:36:58 · answer #9 · answered by crushinator01 5 · 1⤊ 5⤋
I don't think so. Its the temporary effect of having forces in place that ends as soon as they leave. Yes, it works as long as we are prepared to stay there. I think its becoming too costly to maintain. When we leave, what will happen, will happen and Iraq will go its own way...after we have extracted enough oil .
2007-08-06 01:37:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋