I am still wondering how a country like USA which spend over 400 billiuons on military spending loose a war to a country like Iraq!! With million dollar computers which do all kinda war programing how it come they did not recognised the percentage of risk?!! Now that they stuck their they have no choice but to run away but this is not so easy. 1- if republicans take troops out of Iraq, the loss will be registred to thier name. 2- If republicans can stay longer untill the next presidential term and wait for Hilary to take troops out then it would be Democrates to blame, because then republicans can say " we could have won the war if we stayed longer and if Hilary did not asked troops back! Good logic to blame others for a lost war... Wasn't Vietnam loss enaugh!!? God Bless America
Because the war was based on a lie, and wars based on lies usually dont have the true will of the people behind it. We lost 3400 of our troops so far. Does this tick any of u offffff the least? Thanks to our war terrorism is spreading even more that it was before. At least before saddam stopped any kind of terrorists in his country. Now if we leave who will be there to stop this? They are pouring in from all sides of borders . Soon the iraqis will be left with this mess that we created on their hands. What a shame , what a dang shame Mr2 it wouldnt matter who was in office as this war was planned by the elite and it would have happened even if a democrate was in office. This is a war beyond political lines and it served no one else but the power structure
Sticking to your question Why US lost the war.. For one Guerilla warfare is so effective that no amount of technology can defeat the random plans of attack by the guerillas,yes Vietnam was one good example,US have to pull out after all...Really did they calculate the risk?
The USA hasnt lost the war YET. It is the terrorists who are losing their holy war and getting an ugly name for themselves a bad name. Only time will tell about whether USA wins the war or no. Lets not jump into conclusions so soon..
That's what we built nukes for. To use them. Why not? At least then the complaints would have a high pitch tinge of fear at the edge of 'em. I'm not saying we should nuke it to hell, but, if we just showed them the power of one, in an area that doesn't even have to be populated - I am sure a few would get the message.
The war is not lost, sure the tactics have been wrong and in the main laughable, as the controllers continue to make error after error But it's never too late, to adopt what should have been the objective in the beginning that is a having a strategy to prevail With a winning strategy even this mess can be turned round at the 11th hour
53% said the war is losing. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702046.html Regards Thibaut
USA should be more concerned about the financial debacles rather than keep attacking @ other countries with fake reasons! European nations are gathering togather and look how strong EURO is against the USD! I have always loved the Americans BUT I cant say the same about the politicians!
The war is not lost in fact it has gone very well considering. There's a democratic government in Iraq now, thousands of terrorists have been erased & the country is in the process of being rebuilt. What makes the war seem lost is various things 1) The WMD that was expected to be there were found. 2) People who hate Bush simply hate the war just because they hate Bush & want him to be seen as bad. 3) Propaganda campaigns mostly via the internet by terrorists & their supporters (kinda like some DP members) 4) The media's interest in the war compared to others is unhelpful which affects public opinion. 5) The countries fighting the war are fighting unknown, none uniformed terrorists who's best weapon is to hit, run, hide.
The WMDs were not simply "expected to be found". They, along with the supposed Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, were the entire reason laid out for starting the war. Furthermore, the US government knowingly used false intelligence to make their case for WMDs[1][2], along with false intelligence for the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection[1][2]. Isn't it the responsibility of the Administration to use the best intelligence available when deciding on its foreign policy? Why are they excused for manipulating the facts? Is it because they were exposed after the fact? In any case, you're doing a disservice to the UK and the US when you trivialize the reasons behind the war. This is circular logic. In your eyes, anyone who disagrees with the war is a Bush hater and should be ignored. How can you engage in a discussion if that's your position? You aren't defending the reasons behind the war with substance, and you aren't rebuking criticism with anything substantial either. How can anyone take you seriously? Anything opposing your viewpoint is propaganda written by terrorists, more circular logic. You're pushing the discussion outside the realm of debate when you write things like this. If you're so confident in your position why not post something that backs up your argument? Why fall back on statements that offer no value for your side in the discussion? If you're putting in the effort to write a post why not write one that supports your reasoning? When something that opposes your viewpoint is reported it's your responsibility to expose it as untrue using factual information. What's helpful and unhelpful is inconsequential, attention should be focused on what's true and untrue. Agreed.
checksum you seem to have problems reading my post, your taking what's said then somehow trying to make that into what you interpret i said which is not correct, i meant exactly what i said no more & no less. Since all your assumptions are plain wrong we'll leave them. Instead i'll address this one for clarity: Your 100% right. What i meant was the media is the biggest reason why people think the war is lost just look at the headlines "soldier 18 dies in Iraq" they then interview the mother (who's crying) & honestly this does affect people personally, they feel sorry for her (rightly so) then they think this is so awful i'm against the war & with numbers rising there's greater concern. Can you imagine if world war 2 took place during our times with the media we have? the same thing would happen.
If you don't fully explain your position how am I supposed to interpret it correctly? Germany invaded our allies and massacred entire populations. Japan attacked Pearl Harbour and raped women and children in the Oceanic. Iraq, or rather Saddam, was attacked on false claims. He was an evil man and although I disagree with the war, he deserved to be overthrown, but the way the US and UK went about it is not comparable to WW2 in any way.
You just need to read what i put there's no hidden agenda. I'm not comparing WW2 with Iraq at all, i'm comparing the media coverage of WW2 in comparison with the coverage on Iraq. Just imagine the roll today's media would have played in the outcome of WW2? i bet you any money civilians hearing all the bad stuff about how Germany has invaded countries & how hope is dimming of winning the war everyday would make most the population want to surrender to Germany so they could probably be spared death.
You could be right, but it's impossible to tell. I'd like to think our generation could band together long enough to fight someone as evil as Hitler.
I don't care who lost or won there, I care about who's next? There are so many fishy places on earth, let's just erase them all? Or, wait, there might be a life on a Mars too, so we can fly there and erase some bastards there, can't we? Another words, why US gives a damn to what's happening in Iraq or Iran, protect your own country, if needed close your borders to any iranian or iraq people. These are some risky moves, althouth I am sure their first think a lot on who they can erase and who's capable to give a good punch back, this makes it less risky.
The discussion between Toopac and Checksum was interesting. I have no idea what the hell you're talking about?