or should we wait, risk the lives of soldiers while dumping billions into the failed government who has been on vacation?
2007-08-14 15:04:24 · 28 answers · asked by nomoredumbyabush 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
no its not best friend
2007-08-14 15:08:59 · update #1
hitler vs faceless terrorism. kinda hard to win when you don't really know who your enemy is and that is why you can't compare iraq to defeating nazism.
2007-08-14 15:10:48 · update #2
are you that dense glen. the surge was to reduce the amount of violence in iraq.
2007-08-14 15:11:58 · update #3
no one is saying the soldiers are doing a bad job and petraues is doing the best he can in a situation where the iraqi's need to cowboy up and take over there own security
2007-08-14 15:14:54 · update #4
yeah dez i am over here beating off over dead people. your the sicko who thought that up.
2007-08-14 15:18:17 · update #5
In World War 2 we lost thousands in one day. I guess that war was a failure too. We should have pulled out and let Hitler rule the world, huh?
2007-08-14 15:09:21 · answer #1 · answered by Jeff A 5 · 5⤊ 5⤋
In 1998 Bush told Clinton that victory meant reaching a point where a defined exit strategy could be implemented.
We cannot measure the success of the surge until Bush tells us what it is supposed to achieve.
2007-08-14 23:01:28 · answer #2 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Even the democrats are saying that the surge is working.
They have now shifted their complaint to the fact that the government in Iraq is not there.
Here's what they say: "Now that the surge is working and we will be able to turn things over to the Iraqis, how long will we have to stay before their Parliament is ready"
I guess when that's done the democrats will ask: Why do we have two marines at the embassy, can't we do with just one?
It will never stop.
2007-08-14 22:18:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
It's incredibly difficult to deal with combatants that don't wear uniforms and actually believe that they're going to be rewarded with virgins in heaven for killing their fellow Muslims. They actually BELIEVE that. How do you deal with people that are willing to die themselves for their cause because they've been taken by their spiritual leaders, whose lust for power is just as corrupt as any other "infidel" nation.
It would be much better if the rest of the WORLD would step up and help.
2007-08-14 22:40:38 · answer #4 · answered by doktrgroove 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Could we assume that liberals are more concerned about losing this war than the security of the soldiers. If they were so concerned, they wouldn't be giving aid to the enemy by declaring what we're doing as lost, illegal, immoral. The press wouldn't be printing leaked intelligence reports and so on.
As for the Iraqi government, you might see correlations between them and our congress. They're on break and have yet to accomplish much. But I'm sure they're great judges of inefficiency.
BTY - Five of the soldiers deaths was an accidental helicopter crash. If we have 5 traffic deaths, do we pull everyone off the highway.
2007-08-14 22:21:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
It's Bill Clinton's and dim commie democrat's fault and no one else's ever.....
Ladeee fricken da.
Stick a fork in it, this 'war' is done and the U.S is fvcked because of this administration. The serge isn't working. Them's the facts folks, deal with it and the reality that your president is an utter failure. You may have won the elections but you lost the country in the process. Good luck with con-logic to all the cons out there because you have only yourselves to blame when you look in the mirror for the ruination of this country and the horrible situation that you put the Iraqi people through. May God help you because your arrogance and ignorance hasn't helped anyone but the greedy in this country.
2007-08-14 22:15:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋
The surge isn't going to work. When we kicked Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991, we did it with 700,000 allied troops. Now, after taking over the entire country, we've got about 160,000 troops there. We simply don't have near enough troops to do this. The Bush admin. thought this was going to be an easy job, they themselves said it would be a "cakewalk". It's winnable if you pour in hundreds of thousands of troops and hundreds billions more of treasure, but it's not politically feasible. The Bush admin. simply can't or won't admit that they messed this up, and refuse to admit that the political will just isn't there to do what it would take make Iraq stable.
2007-08-14 22:20:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
We can "assume" anything we want.
You, obviously, have already made up your mind.
When the surge resulted in the capture or death of 26 AlQaeda leaders in May and June, did you post a question asking if we could assume the surge was working?
Didn't think so.
2007-08-14 22:27:54 · answer #8 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Lets see because some moron blew up a bunch of people our soldiers aren't doing a great job in implementing the plans laid out for them? Come on give it time to work they said it would be September before we knew anything for sure and bench marks are being met by our soldiers. Now that the guys in charge of the politics wanted a vacation b/c it was too hot last month is ridiculous what is it cooler in August there? Not according to the brother I have over there. EVERY ONE NEEDS TO DO OUR SOLDIERS A FAVOR!!! LET THEM KNOW WE CARE AND SUPPORT THE WORK THEY ARE DOING!!!!!!
2007-08-14 22:13:22 · answer #9 · answered by renee70466 6 · 5⤊ 4⤋
Its common sense. If you "calm" one area, you ignite another via "insurgents" relocating. It would be like "surging" in Chicago to simply watch New York attacks increase by the same magnitude.
2007-08-14 22:18:59 · answer #10 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 6⤊ 1⤋
I think I just heard Oreilly say its a sign that the terrorists are desperate and in their last throes.
2007-08-14 22:19:59 · answer #11 · answered by ballerb j 1 · 7⤊ 0⤋