Will the war be sucessfully over for years and liberals STILL ask "what are we doing in Iraq?"?

Question

Good heavens!

Answer 1

I'm thinking that the reason liberals don't complain about us still being in Germany is its proximity to Amsterdam where liberals can go on vacation to smoke dope and rent prostitutes, and it's all legal. If we could convince the Iraqi government to allow a coastal city to adopt the Amsterdam style recreational tourist industry then liberals would fight to the death to defend Iraq. Then we should get the Afghans to legalize the production of the commodities needed by the newly booming tourist trade in Iraq and ship it all through Iran after the dismissal of Iran's current government. This would solve lots of problems...

Answer 2

Yet you can't define "sucessfully over".

Even if all the fighting ended tommorrow, Iran would still weild huge influence in the south and in the central government, the government would still be corrupt and broken, millions of Iraqis would still be refugees, taliban like sharia law will rule in large parts of the country, and it would take 20 years to correct all that, if ever.

Now, try and fix all that while in the middle of a low grade civil war and a high intensity insurgency. We will be in Iraq for 50 years, and still might not get the outcome we want. Too many supporters of this war act like it is a giant game of risk, and whoever gets all the spaces wins. That isn't how war works.

==edit==
Actually, I've long questioned why we are still in Korea. The cold war is over, China and Russia would be highly unlikely to help the North much in the event of war, and the ROK forces are some of the most proffessional, well trained, and well equipped in the world. I know this from being in 2ID and working closely with their military. They don't need us there. So why are we spending so much money to keep a presence there?

Answer 3

That depends on your definition of "successfully over". When the war begain in 2003, the military defined it as he defeat of Saddam's regime. From that standpoint, the Iraq war has been over since the fall of 2003.

Since then the Bush administration has defined it as the stopping of terrorist attacks and the stable establishment of a pro-US, pro-Republican Iraqi government.

Most Democrats have viewed that the war will end when American troops come home, regardless of victory, defeat, or a draw.

Realistically, with three different definitions of "successfully over", we are going to either be in Iraq for a long time, or we are going to at best have another Korean War, a draw.

Answer 4

Perhaps the liberals think we should return to our previous policies of no response or effective action against the numerous terror attacks against Americans all over the globe - least the liberals forget, these were the policies that arguably culminated in the events of 9/11.
Wake up, air heads - America cannot be "terror proofed." This fanatical ideology of hatred and domination must be confronted and that's why we are in the Middle East. That wasn't so difficult to digest, now was it?

Answer 5

The Republicans say we need to finish the job in Iraq. Does that mean we need to go back and finish Korea and the unfinished job we left there?

Answer 6

If the war is successfully over (which has never been defined), the liberals will be celebrating that we're no longer in Iraq.

Answer 7

Until the lever is thrown and their supreme leader tells them that the war is over, they will then change the direction of their lockstep.

Answer 8

How come they're not asking why we're still in Korea?

Answer 9

I think they are still asking about WWII?? Too many drugs make you slow.

Answer 10

The broken record of liberal mantra sounds may linger til doomsday.

Great post, thanks - I needed a giggle.