http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070830/pl_afp/uscongressiraqunrest
The problem is, the liberals have too high of expectations for the Iraq War. Rather then expecting a war to last under 4 years, be paid for by something other then credit on American taxes, and have a decrease in violence and terrorism, their expectations should be simply: It's slightly better then it was with Saddam.
2007-08-30 08:49:24 · 12 answers · asked by Take it from Toby 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
ALL of these "expectations", which you have erroneously assigned to war critics,were clearly laid out by the President and his administration in the months leading up to the invasion. ALL of them.
How quickly we forget...
2007-08-30 08:56:27 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Could it be because the administration told the American people"we will be welcomed as liberators","the Resistance is in its last troe's","doubt the war will last six months"
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=w67Bk9xAAT8
The Iraq war is the biggest foreign policy failure in American History.
I also disagree with your premise Iraq is now better of than under Saddam.In a lot of area's the life of ordinary Iraqi's are much worse now.Women's rights,civil war,sharia law in several parts of the country were all thing that didn't happen under Saddam.
You could be safe in Iraq if you didn't stand up to the government and didn't get involved with politics against the regime.Now that's over and people die every day just going to the market or to their job.
2007-08-30 16:11:05 · answer #2 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you slightly better than with Saddam.
1) Since there were no terrorists when we invaded then I guess we would have an Iraq that actively hunts Al Queda but we actually have the place crawling with them (or so we are lead to believe).
2) There was no sectarian violence with Saddam. Guess we should expect that as well.
3) Plenty of torturing going on with Saddam and we as well as the current regime there continues this tradition. So as far as the torturing goes things may be better. So we have met on this issue your insightful benchmark.
2007-08-30 16:20:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
"It's slightly better then it was with Saddam."
For whom?
People in Iraq is facing dead everyday. Saddam was a tyrant but he didn't kill one tenth of the deaths since the invasion. Saddam locked in jail and torture anyone who opposed him. The US army locks in jail and tortures anyone, period. Saddam was a terrible but the US army is not a better choice for iraquies. They're in constant danger, their properties destroyed by the war and they have about the same or less freedom than with Saddam. So, it's not better for them.
The americans are suffering losses in their families for no reason. Paying huge amounts of money to support the war effort. Having their liberties taken away for safety reasons. So, it couldn't be for them either.
The rest of the world is worried about this war because it seems that the US intention is to expand it to the rest of the middle east and keep going. With Saddam, the war was a domestic affair. It's not better for the rest of the world.
I guess you're wrong. Things are not better now than with Saddam.
PS: Sorry, I forgot. It's a LOT better for Halliburton and the US government.
2007-08-30 16:20:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Oh. I see. How long should a war last then? We were only involved in WWII for 4 years. The Civil War was 4 years. The American Revolution only took 5. So....how long? I'm not trying to be pushy here, but that's the military's job, right? To gather intelligence, and reasonably estimate a strategy for victory. So...how long?
2007-08-30 15:56:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
High expectations? Like asking the Iraqi government to pass fundamenal legislation toward beginning reconciliation. Like oil revenue sharing agreement. They haven't even started addressing this issue.
2007-08-30 15:58:16 · answer #6 · answered by C.S. 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
"It's slightly better then it was with Saddam." Better for whom Americans? That is non sense. We are in a huge debt and losing soldiers. I assure you is not better for iraqis either since we invaded they have lost around 70,000 people.
2007-08-30 16:38:34 · answer #7 · answered by Jose R 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The slam dunk missed the goal ...
2007-08-30 16:07:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hot patata summed it up nicely.
2007-08-30 16:01:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree, you make a good point: anti-war detractors either have expectations that are too high, or they've committed to themselves to the anti-war effort.
2007-08-30 15:55:28 · answer #10 · answered by Pfo 7 · 2⤊ 6⤋