or is this more like nam 1969?
2007-10-23 11:03:43 · 6 answers · asked by PD 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Just because it's claimed that violence is down doesn't mean it is. It really means nothing. Lulls happen in conflicts, wars, actions or whatever you want to call it. It's a regroup and rearm, re-planing and reflecting of the combatants. It happens. The worst part of it is the re-fighting for the same territory already taken once, twice or three times, it can be and most likely will be, more intense then the previous time(s).
If Viet-Nam has taught the Military anything, it would be to be above your peak awareness at this time.
But remember, there are LIES and then there are STATISTICS. The White House IS running the show, so lies and statistics are always possible, that is a given fact.
2007-10-23 11:48:50 · answer #1 · answered by Mr.D 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We have been winning all along. We control the oil fields, the Iraqis are killing themselves, the "terrorists" are focused on attacks in Iraq and not here and we got ourselves a nice little occupation that is just not going to end anytime soon (which means the military-industrial complex will thrive and make some people a LOT of money).
2007-10-23 11:16:43 · answer #2 · answered by go avs! 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It may mean there is progress, or it may just be that the groups are moving into separate enclaves so their is less opportunity for random violence. This would only be a step toward "winning" if the country is partitioned.
2007-10-23 13:20:47 · answer #3 · answered by meg 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only if winning means we are willing to maintain the same troop levels indefinitely.
2007-10-23 11:10:33 · answer #4 · answered by mommanuke 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We've always been winning this war, since the beggining. That hasn't been the issue. The question is if we have the resolve to standby a nation we hardly know, for as long as it takes. That...I'm not sure.
2007-10-23 11:07:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
hey... what are you doing comparing statistics with real dates?
you're only supposed to use terms like "lowest in a year"... and "reaching low levels" that are vague and make it sound a lot better...
don't you watch the news...
2007-10-23 11:07:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋