Maybe we aren't doing so great now, but with a real leader, instead of Bush, do we have a shot.
I say either try to win or leave now.
Lets vote for people who will pick one of the two, instead of sitting back and implementing useless optional timetables.
2007-12-20 11:36:16 · 15 answers · asked by fuzzybrowsrocklee 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
McCain can only pass loud winds.
2007-12-20 11:46:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
the actual question is, "What does victory appear as if?" The Republicans and Bush's administration do no longer even understand what they are searching for for in a victory. Do they assume that after terrorists supply up doing suicide assaults, it's going to be over? which will never happen. Do they assume the scuffling with to ever quit? What does "triumphing" mean in this intense priced warfare? while Obama brings the troops abode brazenly and strategically, Iraq's management will awaken and pull their u . s . a . jointly. i think of a loss may be to have yet another dictator on top of issues, however the Iraqi's already have a democratic device and a shape now. as quickly as we pull out below Obama, it's going to be like Kosovo. we are able to grant a limited volume of troops for the time of election circumstances to maintain the peace. McCain has no concept what a win may be! He says that it will "probable" be over by 2013. it is his ideal observe.
2016-11-23 18:28:05 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mc Cain can lead the nation away from war. Not by removing our troops but with dedication and experience he can ensure our nations security. No one ever wins wars. Lost are thousands. Won is the freedoms we hold dear. Sharing those freedoms with the otherwise oppressed is the triumph.
Yes. I am a firm supporter of John McCain. Please take a second look.
http://www.johnmccain.com
Happy holidays.
2007-12-20 11:45:56 · answer #3 · answered by Mele Kai 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There is no winning in Iraq. There are only varying levels of losing.
When one compares the benefits to the cost, only a blind man would say that invading Iraq was worth the price. The population of Iraq is less than that of California. Yet look at what it has cost to be there thus far.
2007-12-20 11:41:39 · answer #4 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I don't think it's a matter of "who can win", but the definition of winning itself. Bush has changed his definition of winning so many times, it's hard to keep track. First, it was "free and stable... valuable trading partner.... good global neighbor... etc... etc..."
I think the last time I heard him try to define "victory in Iraq", he said "less car bombings"... Wow... way to set the bar high, big guy...
2007-12-20 12:03:08 · answer #5 · answered by Fretless 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's physically impossible to win a war. You just have fewer people die than the other guys. That's not a win.
2007-12-20 12:07:41 · answer #6 · answered by The Frontrunner 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What, is he Rambo or something? The Pentagon's own report states that in order to "win" in Iraq, there needs to be political reconciliation and if the majority isn't willing to do that, then our bayonets aren't going to make it happen.
2007-12-20 11:43:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
No we can't win a civil war that has been going on for thousands of years between different cultural groups.
2007-12-20 11:43:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I hope McCain can win the war.
Shouldn't he stop his campaigning and get in uniform and got over there Pronto?
2007-12-20 11:40:10 · answer #9 · answered by Kevin S 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
McCain couldn't win a shuffleboard game in a retirement home.
2007-12-20 11:40:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋