2007-08-22 05:03:42 · 17 answers · asked by Handy man 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Two points at the sound of the buzzer
2007-08-22 05:07:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There cannot ever be a "victory? declared and that is the point. It is beyond naive to believe that we will erradicate terror across the globe. We do not have the rescources for our current action in Iraq. And there are dozens of hotspots that the Media will not cover. Sierra Leone, Columbia, Indonesia, Etreia, etc. And worse still, we have created more future terrorists than we will ever care to admit because this mission was not about Saddam Hussein or WMD's in the first place.
2007-08-22 12:13:14 · answer #2 · answered by blklightz 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A stable government doing the will of the people without the help of the U.S. military being necessary. Then again, we won't even have that here until January 20, 2009, so Iraq certainly won't have it before then. Bush talks about victory, but his policies are completely preventing it.
2007-08-22 12:08:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
a victory would have been winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis immediately after saddam was toppled - due to uppermanagements mismanagement this will now unfortunately not be obtained - today a victory would be a change in direction using our resources for hunting down bin laden - small military ops wherever terrorists are known to be located -using cia to remove govts who support terrorist - Iraq is front page stuff around the world -I believe it encourages muslims to become terrorists - they use it as propaganda to build support against us- I think our war on terror should be done much more covertly and with less fan fare - I do not under estimate the threat -I just think it should be handled a little more delicately- ronpaul2008.com
2007-08-22 12:21:40 · answer #4 · answered by rooster 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This is a war we shouldn't be involved in but now that we are, we're stuck in a "no-win" position. To me, a victory would mean Iraq's government can stand on it's own two feet. But don't hold your breath. That's not going to happen anytime soon.
2007-08-22 12:08:18 · answer #5 · answered by katydid 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We won in Iraq once Saddam was removed (which was GW's point of the invasion). Once that occurred, we should have started withdrawal of major troops and started with infrastructure building. We needed to leave the Iraqi's alone to put together their own government. (we have always performed horribly with this task)
We cannot win in a civil war. We should have remembered Vietnam and Korea.
2007-08-22 12:08:48 · answer #6 · answered by Mr. PhD 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Democrats allowing American Soldiers to have the supplies they need. Peace on American soil. Working, Playing, just plain living without fear of a terrorist attack. The liberal News casters reporting about the success in Iraq. The celebrities signing up for duty in stead of stirring up lies. Just to name a few things.
2007-08-22 13:04:52 · answer #7 · answered by jarodgirl 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What does it matter? Whatever the outcome, the Hawks will call it a victory, the doves will call it a failure.
2007-08-22 12:42:18 · answer #8 · answered by jehen 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When the Iraqi government says they no longer need the coalition. The military is close to full strength. The police are weeding out the muslim crazies. The good guys are winning.
2007-08-22 12:08:42 · answer #9 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Having someone else come in to babysit for the next few decades instead of the US
2007-08-22 12:10:49 · answer #10 · answered by outcrop 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋