Five year plus after the "Dancing in the Streets by Iraqi's" that has never happened, and Bush is doing nothing but buying time with American tax payer Money and lost health and life of United States Soldiers, Marines, Naval and Air Force personal. Also, at least five times as many innocent Iraqi lives are lost as America lives are lost. Why?
We know it is not WMD's, Democracy as we recognize it, Building a reliable allie, Making friends in the Middle East, Doing the bidding of Jesus to love thy Enemy or building a stronger American Military or a more hopeful future for anyone.
So why are the Republicans continuing this Five Act Play based roughly on the Vietnam War? Do we really want another War to go on one, three or five more years that is already doomed to failure? Why?
2007-09-26 15:43:03 · 11 answers · asked by zclifton2 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I have a bad feeling that everyone at the top knows that there is no good way to go from here. The President wants to "stay the course" in order that his party can claim that they were doing the right thing all along and the disasters that followed were caused by his sucessor.
2007-09-26 15:50:35 · answer #1 · answered by Robert K 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Arabic countries have a long memory, they do not forget abandonment, the reason the insurgency is so hard is because in the Gulf War we abandoned our supporters, in turn they were slaughtered by Saddam. T
oday your average Iraqi has remembered this, they know that if you wait long enough American bureaucracy will show it's true colors. With the troop surge we've seen an unprescedented amount of local cooperation and support, would you have us abandon those people? I would hope not
2007-09-26 16:23:04 · answer #2 · answered by Jon 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I know many people think its possible to just "quit" a war but trust me it isn't. War is hard, war isn't pretty. Its not supposed to be. In world war 2 400,000 men lost there lives. On Iwo Jima 3,000 died, thats the death toll of this entire war. This is a completely different type of warfare. American SF and infantry of the military had defeated the Iraqi Guard in 21 days. Now we're fighting a new enemy that hides behind women and children and kills its own people for the sake of there god. And the terrorist know that if they just hold out for a little bit longer we'll be gone. Thats not the message we wan't to give our enemies. All politicians should butt out of the war and leave the fighting to the men who know how to win a war, our generals.
2007-09-26 15:51:06 · answer #3 · answered by Shello 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Son, we have had bases in Japan and Germany for a long time. It dont happen over night. It isn't a game.
If every soldier packed his gear, got on a plane and left. There wouldn't be a person alive there that talked to the allies, helped the allies, received help from the allies, spoke in support of the allies.
I lost a lot of good friends in Viet Nam when we left.
My dad lost a lot of friends at the bay of pigs, when we cut and ran.
And I do believe dems also voted for it
2007-09-26 15:52:50 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Since this administration has neglected to use any diplomacy in the region since the onset of this occupation, if we left now after nearly 5 years, choas would likely break out in the whole region. It was pathetically mishandled from the very beginning. Pres. Bush says it would be surrendering, but I don't understand who we would be surrendering to. These people are insulted in ways that Americans do not understand. We do not fathom these people and we don't belong in their business. We should have stuck with getting the terrorists in Afghanistan, not Saddam Hussein.
2007-09-26 16:05:27 · answer #5 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Hmmm, ask Harry S. Truman, he left Korea and 30,000 + US KIA in Eisenhowers lap.
Ask LBJ he left Vietnam and 40,000+ US KIA in Nixons Lap
once you can answer those, maybe you'll have a clue, since you obviously have little knowledge of American History.
Somehow I bet you'll think "Resident Evil is the best film ever made dude"
2007-09-26 16:41:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
So the blame for failure will fall on the next President... Not the "Bushes."
g-day!
2007-09-26 15:55:45 · answer #7 · answered by Kekionga 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
What I'm curious about is why you're so hard on people like Cheney for making incorrect assessments of the future, and give people like Murtha and Kerry a pass for being totally off the mark on the past.
2007-09-26 15:47:31 · answer #8 · answered by open4one 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Hmmm...just a guess but I'd say we are avoiding ending the war because the war isn't over?
2007-09-26 15:53:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Perhaps they actually beleive that its not doomed to failure? They think it can be passified. Unfortunatly ,these are Muslims we are talking about, basically a step above savages!
2007-09-26 15:47:22 · answer #10 · answered by TyranusXX 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋