• bloc said on May 29, 2006....

  I think it depends on what you mean by "win". We could kill a very large number of the people in Iraq very quickly. Is that winning? To me winning is being in a better position after the war than before it. Making the whole world hate you, in my opinion, is not winning. This is the major reason I think Iraq was a mistake from the beginning

• SOLDIERCIPSWIFE said on May 30, 2006....

  Good question-I think I will ask him tonight what HE meant. I guess my idea would be that Iraq could take care of itself. I thought that was our president's goal We both agree we should never have been there. We both laugh that we voted for this idiot:)

• sillyman said on May 30, 2006....

  I agree with bloc. Acturally, America should not have fallen in the war with Iraq at all from the beginning. America went to the war claimming Iraq has large destructive chemical weapons and etc, let put the issue aside that if Iraq really has those weapons, only why America should go to Iraq to do what Americ claimed to do instead of UN? What would we have UN be there for? I never want to discuss with people about the war with Iraq if people disregards the fact that if it is the mission of America who should go into Iraq to do what is claimed to do.

• paulskakey said on May 30, 2006....

  don"t most cool birds attack from the sky?

• SOLDIERCIPSWIFE said on May 31, 2006....

  Yes--Iraq taking care of itself-Us getting out-that would be winning :)

• kelly said on Jun 03, 2006....

  I thought one of the big lessons learned in Afghanistan and Iraq was that we couldn't just bomb our way to

• kelly said on Jun 03, 2006....

  Sorry. Truncated post. I thought one of the big lessons learned in Afghanistan and Iraq was that we couldn't just bomb our way to "victory." In the end the troops on the ground were what was needed no matter how much "shock and awe" was delivered from the sky.

• SOLDIERCIPSWIFE said on Jun 06, 2006....

  We havent bombed our way through Iraq--that's the question I was asking my husband:)

• generic said on Jun 11, 2006....

  "Collateral damage" is also a main reason. Do you know how expensive it is to rebuild a structure from ground up. Not to mention, that not only did you cost more money by destroying something, but the deaths associated as well as the displacement of families. Plus that attack from the air mentality costs money also. The gas associated with the fighter planes, and believe me its alot, as well as that munition expended by the aircraft. After we get done blowing up the target, we now have to rebuild it. The military does not want to spend that much money on an insurgency running around with ak 47's.

• SOLDIERCIPSWIFE said on Jun 20, 2006....

  Generic- thanks- that is helpful. Sometimes it seems like the answer is so easy. I think my husband and I discussed that fact and the fact that the US always seems to destroy countries during war and then rebuilds them...Funny how that works :)

Comment on "IRAQ FROM THE AIR"

Currently tagged	war iraq politics husband love cool birds collateral damage bombs munitions insurgents (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously