Why did Henry Kissinger wait so long before announcing that we could not win in Iraq??
919323
Yes, but then how do we know that Henry Kissingers isn't old and out dated ?
69121
I really didn't want another Bush in office because of Sr George Bush was about when he was in office. Unfortunately his son is in office and then 9/11 happened. Now we have our troops over seas fighting against an enemy that they have no real experience in fighting (guriella war-fare). Troops are dying everyday and we really haven't found any weapons   of mass destruction or Osoma Bin-Laden as of yet. The real reason why we are over in Iraq is to get our bid in on their black gold. Is Bush the right person for presidency? NO. But he has to finish what he started.
1018950
Our troops are still in Iraq because Bush is too arrogant to admit that he was wrong about Iraq. His administration knows the truth, but it is not patriotic to oppose him when he is in trouble. His incompetence and lies coasted us big time and we all suffering from his mistakes. How can Bush get Iran's oil, control Saudis oil too, protect Israel, show off his power to Europpeans and monitor the Europpean Union and control the Islamic Fundamentalists in the Middle East?  Well, he must stay in Iraq for many years to come.
391169
Already happened.  We took Baghdad, and quickly.  Didn't you pay attention?  Didn't you see the tanks roll in to Baghdad?  The cruise missiles light up the night sky?  The iraqi armies surrendering by the legion-full?\n\nWatch carefully next time.  "Shock & Awe" is not a long-lasting process.  It is a stun and go.
737725
Should have happened a long time ago.  Of course we can't win a military victory in Iraq.  It is JUST LIKE VIET NAM.  How soon we forget the lessons of history.\n\nSaudi Arabia should take the lead on policing Iraq, if it needs policing.  They have all kinds of oil money to spend.  Why in the world are we spending billions in Iraq, when we have already sent billions to the region buying their oil?\n\nLet's allow the region to govern and police itself.  If Saudi Arabia really felt threatened, don't you think they could buy enough weapons to defend themselves?  I haven't heard them say they were afraid of any of their neighbors, including Iran.  And Russia says absolutely nothing about these countries on their western border.  Why?\n\nWe should have been long gone.
375427
i dn't know about vietnam and heroshima but iraq because our ass is still over there and we can't take our a whole country. and if iraq was so bad why we beat them in a week why we over there in the frist place they didn't bomb us think about it
836286
... The American soldiers were sent to Iraq based on a lie told by our president,...no!  we did not reach our target as our target was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction which even Bush admits may not exist,... since then ,he has changed the reason for going to war once a year and his supporters now use his most recent example,,fighting terrorist ,although they did not exist in Iraq before we invaded... Giving the fact that Bush has two years left I am sure we will hear two more excuses..the result of our adventure is a split country... a world that hates us and generations of children around the world growing up believing we are an evil people!!!
821248
Could we defeat them? Yes we could. Do we currently have the balls to jump in a furball with them and stick it out to the win? No, we do not. Witness Iraq and all the mewling and whining even after it was carefully explained that it would be a long, expensive process.\n\nShould we? No. All we need do is show that we have the guts and determination to finish what we started in Iraq, they will back off.
141610
Did he start this war ? And don't natter about 9/11.  We know there was no connection concerning Iraq.
136123
It was necessary for us to create a stable govt. in Iraq to prevent it from becoming a host country for terrorism and to counter the very real threat they posed of producing WMDs.  (I feel we should have waited and taken on Iran or Syria first)\n\nBUT\n\nIt is apparent that democracy is beyond the capabilities of a factionalized and tribally minded Iraqi population.  Therefore, we should get out as soon as possible rather than continue this wastefull experiment in democracy.\n\nHOW we should do it is arguable.\nBut I suggest setting up a US friendly authoritarian government.  One that will have the determination to counter any insurgency using the most severe means.  Yes, I'm talking about a dictatorship.  This might offend some, but it is the only way to effectively govern a nation like Iraq.\n\nOur goal should be somewhat selfish.  We're trying to protect ourselves by establishing stability. We should do so in the way that's least harmful to us. \n\nIf you look at the alternative.  This idea really isnt' so bad:\nCivil war vs. our US led leadership OR\nIslamic dictatorship vs. US. led leadership.\n\nAlso, if you look at history, which was worse:\nShah of Iran or Ayatolah Komeni?\nBatista or Castro?\nChina before the revolution or China under Mao?\nCambodia before or after Pol Pot?\n\nSome countries are destined for dictatorship.  Those that are will be better off under our guiding hand.\n\nOf course this could not work over the long run.  We must have a strategy to totally exit from the region once it is stabilized.  Involvement in the mid-east does not work for us.  We must accept that fact.\n\n!!!---If I've answered your question.  Please remember to vote for my answer! ---!!!
711923
Very badly I'm sad to say.  We should have known this,  and no doubt Bush was told of this possibility by his military.  I don't believe it is republican pride so much as from everyone's being deliberately lied to about why we should  have been there in the first place.  We should have gone to Afghanistan to get Osama, whatever happened to him?  He's probably  sitting in a Paris cafe drinking coffee and reading about Iraq in the paper.  Iraq was a deception perpetrated on the public,taking advantage of the patriotism of the American people.  The shame is that it looks like Iraq will never improve, only serving those who are pro fitting from it, while our troops get wounded and die, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis perish.
182012
When President George HW Bush was in office, it was a defensive war fought to liberate Kuwait from Iraq. The goal of the war was only the freedom of Kuwait, not to move into Iraq, although a number of US generals were pushing for it. Bush, Powell and other leaders decided it was not in the best interest to go in at that time - this wasn't an "unfinished war" despite what people want to say to demean the current President. The Kurds, thinking we were going to help them free themselves from Hussein, started an uprising. When we didn't come into Iraq, Hussein's army easily suppressed the rebellion and then proceeded to torture and kill entire villiages and towns, including through the use of WMDs (sarin gas), and then openly attempted to assassinate Bush after he was out of office.\n\nAs part of Hussein's surrender, they had to comply by UN laws and treaties. They did not for 12 years. Why would you fault Bush for taking a murderous dictator for task? And name one war that we "got out right away?" We still have troops stationed overseas from WWII, Korea and Vietnam. For some reason, Americans decided that wars can be fought during commercial breaks during sitcoms. Wars are drawn out processes that result in many lives lost, but for the hopefully greater good of society.\n\nGod bless your son, but don't trivalize what he is fighting for.
933520
The insertion of troops was a major mistake. The entire region under Islamic influence from Morocco to Indonesia is far less stable as a result. The U.S. is increasingly seen as dictatorial by increasing numbers of people around the world. Our economy has been vastly weakened. We do not have enough troops available should other emergencies develop. The Civil War, denied by the Bush administration but acknowledged as being fully underway by the rest of the world, deepens daily and leaves American troops there as sitting ducks. There can be no victory in Iraq. Just as the British learned after World War I, the Iraqis will not be conquered. There is too much value underground (oil) and too much division above-ground. The only result of continued occupation will be increasing governmental debt for the U.S. and more dead and injured American soldiers. Military contractors such as Halliburton are being enriched. The Bush administration has no idea of what they mean by "victory", nor does Tony Blair in England.
942835
Well I saw the statement that he made and personally I don't think that he meant it the way it came out. It was just one of those situations when you put your foot in your mouth without realizing how it sounds to others. At the moment I am not a fan of politics as it seems that our country is going to hell in a handbasket! My husband is in the military and will probably have to ship off one day in the near future and it really makes me sick that it is for a inhumane cause. Iraq is not in any way trying to invade or attack us. So why are we there? Why are they trying to force a democracy that will never exist there? People have been under Islamic rule there for over 2,000 years why would they change now??? This is not about terrorism or weapons of mass destruction this is all about controlling the oil industry. It's a greedy, cruel, inhumane war that is taking the lives of our soliders and also killing innocent people who live there.
948213
Coincidence.   The Iraqis are too incompetent to have anything turn out according to any pre-determined plan.
726905
The situation in Iraq reminds me of trying to hold water in your bare hands.  The present government is like a Mirage in the desert, and will surely fall, maybe as soon as this week if the Shiites threat holds up.  If we leave Iraq will collapse.  If we stay it will collapse slower, but still collapse.  The idea that fundamentalists, no matter of what stripe, will have control of Iraq's oil I'm sure is making people sweat all over the world.  Oil must be reasonably stable.  To accomplish this end,  Bush is going to have to open this up and really include the rest of the world in discussions, military personnel, planning, and execution,  if there is any hope at this point  Let us hope that it is not too late for some form of reasonable solution to be worked out.
706633
I think that a bout of quickie wars led bush to believe that the war in Iraq would also be very swift. i think he would probably take a longer time before declaring war, which he has come to realize is a very long, heartbreaking thing, with no real winners.