150 people( all men ) were kidnapped from the Ministry of Education in Bagdad. More bombings as well. If we can't protect the people of Iraq and we won't send the amount of troops necessary to do the job, why not pull out? This isn't working.
2006-11-14 01:08:33 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I don't think they know what to do. That was a very organized effort. More troops does not provide management skills.
2006-11-14 01:17:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely no chance of more troops being deployed to Iraq.
Hate to say it, but, Bush and Rumsfeld had almost four-years to quell the insurgents, and haven't been successful. I place most of the blame on Rumsfeld, but right from the start, the Kennedy's, the Kerry's, the Durbin's, and the Murtha's of congress sabotaged our war effort.
If there weren't an anti-American element within our own government, maybe Rumsfeld could have prevailed.
It's not like our troops aren't the finest ever to be fielded by any nation in the history of warfare.
Carl Levin and the other newly crowned Dems are already calling for troop redeployment.
Case-Church Amendment, anyone?
2006-11-14 09:28:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The U.S don`t exactly have the possibility to flood Iraq with troops. If Bush drained the U.S for resources he could come up with Max:170. 000 troops. on the ground there. Not enough....... If he need more, he would be left with the option to bring back the draft.
Figure out a facesaving exitstrategy.
2006-11-14 19:22:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
what message would that be sending to other nations. We might need someone else's help someday and if we don't see this to the end then why would anyone want to back us if we have a reputation to cut and run. We owe it to the Iraqi people to finish what we started. Why would we give them a little taste of what it's like to live like us and then leave them when it's convenient for us. War is not pretty and people do die--but it's for the greater good. I lost my brother in Iraq and I know that he would be very angry if we don't see it through to the end. Did he die for nothing---I hope not. He went over there to help an oppressed people--to try to give them the freedom that we have and what a shame if all our men and women sacrificed for a people that we will choose to abandoned right when they need us the most. Please tell me that America has not become that selfish and self absorbed?
2006-11-14 09:20:03 · answer #4 · answered by heavnbound 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Extend the current rotation from 12 months to 16 months, and without deploying more troops, pull out of Iraq completely...
2006-11-14 15:09:07 · answer #5 · answered by hockeytwn09 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It matters not how many more troops you pour into that country, the outcome will be the same, your defeat.
the Iraqi people do not want your occupation any longer. they will fight down to the last man to rid their country of your soldiers.
You have lost, the sooner you realise this, the sooner you can save face by withdrawing.
What planet is Allen on? Quote:"The president of Iran is openly threatening nuclear attack." unquote!
What with? they have no nukes! they don't even have ANY nuclear energy production capability yet and the west is up in arms about that. All they have a a small refining facility that refines uranium to a very low level. Not enough for a weapon, not even close. A nuclear energy capability is still a LONG way from a nuclear weapon capability.
The President of Iran has never said he will nuke anyone. NEVER!, as soon as he said such a thing that would be a massive invitation to be attacked!
He has only ever publicly stated a desire to have a peaceful nuclear energy production.
The only people on this planet openly suggesting a nuclear attack against anyone are Israel and the USA in stating potential plans to nuke the fledgeling nuclear plants in Iran, to which the President of Iran has promised an immediate and massive response. He never said anything about using nukes himself. It could be that he is referring to the mutal defence pact he has with Russia. That being that an attack on Iran is the same as an attack on Russia. and believe me, Russia can respond with a MASSIVE nuclear retaliation.
and I ask you, Allen, if you are recommending a pre emptive attack, to stop them attacking you, why should THEY not think likewise. You are, in effect through your logic, recommending that Iran nuke America or at least Israel to prevent themselves from being attacked are you not?
2006-11-14 10:31:22 · answer #6 · answered by kenhallonthenet 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
your right, this isn't working.
the presence of UK and USA troops is making the situation worse, we didnt have to invade iraq to kill sadam, we could have snipered him, iraq wasn't harbouring al'quieda, that was afganistan... we rolled into iraq guns blazing, killing women and chilren in the process (which obvoisly upsets the locals). we are not fighting an army on a battle field, we are fighting cells of un-organised, lunatics with AKs and RPGs among civilians, people get cought in the cross fire and we get hated even more, so more people join more un-organised cells of frustrated, angry (and most often greiving) young militants, and the cycle perpetuates...
I don't have the answer but neither does bush, and neither does anyone on this thread, infact i don't think there is an answer.
2006-11-14 09:37:38 · answer #7 · answered by Ben M 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Increase. The president of Iran is openly threatening nuclear attack. Having a commanding presence there could save millions of innocent lives, and spare the world a nuclear war.
Further, we STILL have troops stationed in Japan and Germany, 60 years after the fact. It took over a decade for the German "werewolves" to stop their sabotage attacks against our presence, and it took 20 years for each of those nations to start becoming economically successful. Each is also rather fearful of our troops leaving, even today, and they are now the top two global economies (after the US). Iraq deserves a chance for a successful future as well. We should remain there for at least 20 years, to help save innocent Iraqi, Israeli, and American lives and ensure a more peaceful future for the entire region.
It is only childish imprudence and impatience in our media that clamors for anything else. Any student of history knows better.
2006-11-14 09:10:13 · answer #8 · answered by Alan B 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
We need to totally devastate via bombing campaigns all areas of Iraq where masses of terrorists reside, then divide the country into 3 or 4 sections, one for the Sunnis, and one for the Shiites... then and only then could we declare victory.
2006-11-14 09:20:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We should double tha mount of folks there. Also, we need to go after those doing this stuff and kill them. Most of the bombers and kidnappers are Sunnis arabs, kill all the males and the insurgents stop. Could take awhile tho because the world would frown on us just carpet bombing all the sunni villages and towns.
2006-11-14 11:02:11 · answer #10 · answered by Have gun, will travel. 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋