Something that's been bothering me recently and probably more of a question than something to debate over - wars are ended by peace treaties (excluding completely eradicating the oponent), correct? Who are we supposed to sign the treaty with? Al-Queda is out of the question one, because they would never accept any sort of peace treaty unless we gave them absolutely everything they wanted (something that is just as bad as defeat) and two becuase there's no actual leader - they're a very spread out group in isolated cells. You could say Osama, yet Bush's agenda doesn't have Osama at the top, showing Bush is not looking for an end to the war or Osama is not the solution. Also, Bush claimed a war on terrorism and forcing a peace treaty onto Bin Laden, once he is found, will not stop Al-Queda's or any other terrorist group's actions. You could try to kill every terrorist, yet its not always certain whether someone is a terrorist or a civilian and children growing up in the Islamic extremist world are raised with these ides, breeding more terrorists. Signing a treaty with the president of Iraq, well that's just stupid. So is dropping nukes on Iraq, since Iraq is not the only country with muslim extremist and more hate will be generated.
Basically, without bias in my attitude towards Bush, how was Bush expecting to end the war and completly accomplish the goal he stated was his aim? How does he plan on winning the war? We are much stronger than our opponent, yet what does it matter if the enemy is continuous. Its definently not a military solution, a very obvious fact, yet Bush is now increasing the number of soldiers in Iraq. Even if the Iraqi government attained the ability to defend its own country, the problem cannot be solved. And the U.S. handing control to Iraq just seems to be the US's attempt to escape the responsibility of the war and an excuse for not having truly attained victory.
What the hell????
Basically, without bias in my attitude towards Bush, how was Bush expecting to end the war and completly accomplish the goal he stated was his aim? How does he plan on winning the war? We are much stronger than our opponent, yet what does it matter if the enemy is continuous. Its definently not a military solution, a very obvious fact, yet Bush is now increasing the number of soldiers in Iraq. Even if the Iraqi government attained the ability to defend its own country, the problem cannot be solved. And the U.S. handing control to Iraq just seems to be the US's attempt to escape the responsibility of the war and an excuse for not having truly attained victory.
What the hell????