Iraq- I say say send in 600,000 troops for 4 months, clean up, secure borders, then go home -ya think?

Question

and then, it's real peace keeper troops time, my friends-

Our US Marines need to charge up for a REAL conflict someday -

Imagine the Homeland Security we'd have for the price of the Iraq war...!

I say GO BIG and get 'er done, and get out, leaving UN peacekeepers to help keep borders safe -

By "getting it done" - thats a trick isn't it? disarm the militias- force them to settle up politically- over half-million troops could do it -
4 months- let Iraq know they will not have ANY support after that -

if they still want "crash and burn" leave up to them - funny how Saddam had em all under control- they are hanging him for a few examples he created- and we kill hundreds of thousands but have chaos -

sadly (and wastefully) were gonna need someone who is
just like Saddam Hussien to run things over there

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A series of secret U.S. war games in 1999 showed that an invasion and post-war administration of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, nearly three times the number there now.

And even then, the games showed, the country still had a chance of dissolving into chaos.

In the simulation, called Desert Crossing, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence participants concluded the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs. <<>>
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/11/04/1999-simulation-400000-troops-needed-in-iraq/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2006%2FWORLD%2Fmeast%2F11%2F04%2Fwar.games.ap%2Findex.html&frame=true

Answer 1

And it appears as if they found people just like Saddam to run things. I sent this link to my senators and congressmen/women as well as my state house leaders. I asked them if they were aware of this and if so, how we could allow this to stand. Unacceptable.

And yes, I think it is past time to commit to this war, no matter if it was right or wrong to start, we are in it now, get it over with. Win it. Given our technology, hardware and numbers, the only thing we are lacking at the moment is balls.

Answer 2

The Bush way isn't working that is for sure since he never had a plan for peace and diplomacy. If America doesn't do something about his power apparatus EGO, I see a draft coming with Republicans being included in the draft. I say with a new Congress and the deployment of U.N. troops with the rest of the World as our allies for a change this thing could be turned around with another massive deployment.

Answer 3

I agree with beejee. When someone with credentials like Kissinger speaks out on an issue, it would behoove those in power to shut up and listen.

As far as the huge troop levels suggested here? I assume you are on board with Charlie Rengal's stated intention to reenact the draft, coz there isn't any other way to round up that many people otherwise. Is it a good idea? I don't think so. I support the idea of doing everything in this administration's power to let the Iraqi government know that we cannot hold their hands forever. We cannot keep our soldiers in the middle of another country's civil war. It is wrong on every level.

"Go long, go big, go home"....I hate sports analogies.

Answer 4

Hey - what a great idea...!!! But why stop at 600,000...? - Make it a round million just to make sure. Then you can kill everyone who opposes the US and take on the next country the Neocons pick out as a suitable case for treatment.

How to win friends and influence people...? - I don't think...!!! With that kind of thinking, no wonder there are more and more folks all over the world who believe America is the real Evil Empire...!!!

Answer 5

Don't think so. We don't have that many troops. That means calling up the Draft training people deploying them and bringing them back. We already wasted billions on Iraq and Israel. We just don't got the money to do so.

Answer 6

Well, since the vast majority of insurgents and terrorists are Sunni, why not flood IRaq with troops, round up and kill all Sunni arabs between 1 month and 99 yrs old. Then level Sadr city and kill all of them to rid the area of the shite death squads. Sure it is harsh, but hey,m muslims seem to like and respect the iron fist.

Answer 7

I thought more troops would be the answer untill I heard Henry Kissinger's opinion - yesterday. He says flatly that we cannot 'win' in Iraq. His is one opinion that deserves consideration and I, as a war veteran, am considering.

Answer 8

That would be the worst thing to do. It's to bad that idiot Rumsfeld wouldn't listen to his top generals at the beginning of this debacle. They knew how many soldiers were needed and he dismissed them outright.

Answer 9

you see ...here's a perfect example of where we are wrong in our thinking as a country...
Get er done?
First off we went in and ripped the country to shreds then we come back 10 years later to do it some more, all under the auspices of WMD's and spreading Democracy, ...oh and battling Muslim extremism...
it's a can of mashed worms kids.. we went in without a plan because we really went in for a pipeline, we went in with guns blazin and blinders on because we need to believe that we are just in all of our efforts, we use depleted uranium devices and then walk our own boys and girls through the dust clouds and then deny them treatment when they come back...
600,000 more.. for what.. to make them sick , to kill more innocent Iraqi civilians???? murder for hire does not a democracy make...
stop this now !!!!!

Answer 10

And leave the politicians out of it.Who the hell needs the likes of Nancy Pelosi,who couldn't fight her way out of a box,trying to be a general?