I have heard from Petreaus nothing but hyped good news, despite that violence in Iraq doubled since the surge. None of this (Bush) guys presents facts, its the same lies since 2003. Do they know, they are establishing the bases and stay anyway, doesn't matter what?
2007-09-10 15:33:07 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Bush has nearly said as much. This does indeed seem to be the long term plan. Bush has also referred to our German bases as another example.
Personally, I think this has always been the strategy. The bases being built are of a permanent nature and the largest US Embassy ever constructed is being built in Baghdad.
Truly, the plan seems to be to have a permanent US military presence in the Middle East for the foreseeable future.
2007-09-10 16:32:46 · answer #1 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You do a poll of South Koreans and see if any of them support terrorists attacks on US forces.
Fifty-seven percent of Iraqis now call attacks on coalition forces "acceptable," up six points from last winter and more than three times its level (17 percent) in February 2004. Since March, acceptability of such attacks has risen by 15 points among Shiites (from 35 percent to 50 percent), while remaining near-unanimous among Sunnis (93 percent).
You can't liberate people who see you as the occupier.American soldiers are becoming less popular every day while they risk their lives for people who don't want them there or so they're told.The real reason America is in Iraq is far more cynical of course but for those honest conservatives,I have no idea how big that group is,who really think this is about nation building and bringing freedom and Democracy the will of the Iraqi people should count
2007-09-10 22:44:38 · answer #2 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its the United States foothold in the Middle-East. We'll be there to the end of time. General Petreaus, and the Bush Administration will continue to push back the time-line; until another Administration is in position to take the blame.
2007-09-10 22:40:55 · answer #3 · answered by Swordfish 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If need be. I bet we haven't fired a shot at the North Koreans since the end of military operations over there.
2007-09-10 22:37:32 · answer #4 · answered by Adolf Schmichael 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
S. Korea is now a rich country and should build a major army of its own. American soldiers should have come home long ago.
2007-09-11 00:18:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If we can bring security to Iraq and they can begin to have the success that South Korea is enjoying, why not?
2007-09-10 22:36:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Different situation, we are still in Europe and ww2 is over nearly 65 years now and the Soviet Union is gone.
2007-09-10 22:54:43 · answer #7 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Different war, different politics. There's nothing to compare the two.
We're still in Germany and Japan, too. Why don't you use that as your example?
2007-09-10 22:37:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
50 years is how long the army chased Geronimo and they could never catch him. When Geronimo got old and tired of running, he turned himself in.
2007-09-11 10:04:32 · answer #9 · answered by Spirit Dancer 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
if that is what you say you "heared" then you "heared" wrong kid!!!
violence IS down in Iraq, numbers do NOT lie!!
and even the Washignton Post said ALL along that more troops was what was needed in iraq to get hold of the situation...:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10161-2004May8?language=printer
so listen to the ones that KNOW and not the clueless idiots here that want to loose this war...!
2007-09-10 22:39:11 · answer #10 · answered by Krytox1a 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋