Have the demonrats failed in their effort to make us lose in Iraq?

Question

This question was removed the last time I asked it. Why? Its a legitimate question.

Answer 1

They have failed, but not due to lack of trying. During WW II, we would have taken this ilk and lined it up against a wall for a firing squad ceremony. That lying Hillary would be at the front of the line !

Answer 2

I'm assuming you can read or is that too big a stretch? If it's not, check out the Dec. 18/06 issue of the New Yorker, a column by Hendrik Hertzberg, which states in part:

The "Executive Summary" (of the Iraq Study Group Report) opens with this statement: "The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating." And the "Assessment" section - 40 pages of relentlessly declarative sentences - confirms what many capable journalists have reported. It lists what it sees as some of the consequences of a continuation of current policy: greater chaos; greater suffering for the Iraqi people; a humanitarian catastrophe; escalated ethnic cleansing; a broader regional war; Sunni-Shia clashes across the Islamic world; a sharp increase in the price of oil; a still stronger base of operations for terrorists; a reduction in America's global influence; increased chances for failure in Afghanistan; greater polarization within the United States. It lists the "basic services" with which "the Iraqi government is not effectively providing its people," and they are basic indeed: "electricity, drinking water, sewage, health care, and education." And that's the good news, relatively speaking: "In Baghdad and other unstable areas, the situation is much worse.

The Study Group summarizes what it calls the "significant challenges" facing the Iraqi Army in a series of bullet points: "Units lack leadership." "Units lack equipment." "Units lack personnel." "Units lack logistics and support." All of which may be just as well, since there are "significant questions" about whether these units "will carry out missions on behalf of national goals instead of a sectarian agenda." Sound bad? Well, the dolorous accounting of the Army's condition is immediately followed by this:

The Iraqi Police

The state of the Iraqi police is substantially worse than that of the Iraqi Army.

Bada-boom. You can almost hear the rim shot. But there is nothing comic about the details: "Iraqi police cannot control crime, and they routinely engage in sectarian violence, including the unnecessary detention, torture, and targeted execution of Sunni Arab civilians." As for Iraq's Facilities Protection Services, which are charged with guarding government ministries, they are merely, in the words of a "senior U.S. official" quoted in the Report, "incompetent, dysfunctional, or subversive." (-- pgs. 33-34)

Is there some part of this you'd even try to blame on someone OTHER THAN the current administration and the poor, stupid dupes willing to come back as trunks for them. Oh, yeah, and in case you think the administration is in any way grateful for the sacrifice or even vaguely respectful of the 'trunks' disability claims, check out these 'Loaded Dice' - http://pokerpulse.com/news/viewtopic.php?p=3002#3002

Answer 3

We cannot "win" in Iraq any more than we can "lose" in Iraq.

Even Rumsfeld says it's impossible for the US to "win" in Iraq. that's because we're not one of the sides -- we're the referee, the babysitter.

Talking about the US winning or losing is like talking about an umpire winning or losing a baseball game. It's meaningless -- we're not one of the sides. We are only there because we choose to be there, and only as long as we choose to be there.

Answer 4

Why? I'll tell you why.

It's overly biased and fairly obvious that you're not even asking a question - merely ranting out your opinion and looking for people to agree with you.

That's not what Yahoo! Answers is for, you dunce!

Answer 5

I don't think the democrats are trying to make us lose exactly, that might be why it was removed.

Answer 6

Your question was removed because it was idiotic.

Answer 7

to answer your second question it's because YA is run by a bunch of lunatic liberals.