Should we send more troops to Iraq to finish what we started?

Question

When Iraq attacked us on 9/11/01, we responded by going to war; we responded by going to wipe out the threat that presented itself to us. Now we've been pulling troops out, and trying to fight war fairly. War is not fair. So, should we send more troops overseas to end this war with less casualties for our troops; send them over so they could quite possibly be home sooner; send them over so we can sleep in peace at night?

Answer 1

Iraq didn't attack us on 9-11, Al-Qeada did. That being said, we need to do everything in our country's power to ensure a stable democratic Iraq not only survives but flourishes. If it takes more troops then do it. If it takes more contractors then do it. If it takes bombing Iran then do it.

Answer 2

Others have pointed out that Iraq did not attack us on 9/11... Al Qaida did. This is true, but when we went in to topple Saddam, we found terror training camps including old aircraft fuselages where Al Qaida trained on taking over jet liners. Sound familiar?

Let's not loose sight of the fact that the radical powers in Iraq and other Muslim countries have declared war on all non-Muslims, a Jihhad, and will support terrorism as long as it can support their goals. We MUST find a viable solution for Iraq.

One of my repeated suggestions is to divide Iraq into the three provinces that existed before the fall of the Ottoman empire. Iraq was created for the ease of control by the British, and when Iraq regained it's independence in 1936, it left the three factions battling for the right to govern it had when it was it's own province. Allow Iraq to return to the pre-WW1 borders giving the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds the right to govern themselves in peace once again. Then we can withdraw.

Even then, we may maintain a presence in the province that will probably be called Kurdistan. The Kurds are very pro-west as their Kurdish neighbors in Turkey. This should be a more peaceful presence once the Shiites and Sunnis also have their piece of the pie.

Answer 3

I don't think just throwing more troops and money in is going to help, a better plan of action has to be reached before much improvement is possible. But all three might help.

However I don't see why you say that Iraq attacked the US on 9/11. None of the attackers were Iraqis, and to my knowledge it doesn't look like Iraq was closely involved.

Answer 4

Of course. If we pull out before the new Iraqi government is fully established and able to protect itself, we will not have accomplished anything.

Look at WW2, after wiping out the Japanesse government, we stayed the course and Japan became a powerful ally. We had troops being killed in the Pacific theater for years after the war ended, but this did not scare us into a withdrawl of troops. We still have a major military presence there.

Answer 5

Iraq most certainly did NOT attack us on 9/11. This was a ruse used by the administration to gain support for the war. Even Bush has recanted his previous statements on this, and claims that Iraq/Saddam had "nothing" to do with the attack on 9/11/01. Most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, but were supported by Al Queda- which had its headquarters and training situated in Afghanistan.

However- in March of '03 70% of America believed that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Freaky huh?

Answer 6

Because so many people believe crapola like "Iraq attacked us on 9/11" we are stuck in an impossible quagmire. There is no way to win this war. Wake up and smell the oil profits you FOOL!!!

The ONLY reason Bush isn't pulling the U.S. out of Iraq is because the puppet Democracy can't stand on it's own. If we leave now, the country collapses into civil war, and all his corporate cronies don't get to setup their oil refineries. Are you really so naive to think we are there to protect the U.S. from terrorism? Open your eyes!!!

Iraq did not attack the U.S. and they are not GOING to attack the U.S. They have nothing to attack us with! The U.S. is on the other side of the planet. Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction. They have no ICBMs. They have no submarines. They have no bombers. They are powerless to directly threaten us in any fashion other than a sneaky terrorist activity that ANY middle eastern or terrorist nation could do anytime they wanted. If a terrorist wants to sacrifice their life to commit terrorism, it's almost impossible to prevent it, but you can try.

Bush did ZERO to TRY to protect this nation from terrorism because they way you do that is by strengthening and securing our ports, terminals, borders and improving our intelligence agencies. Going around the world and blowing the crap out of a sovereign nation CREATES TERRORISTS. Why don't people understand this???

If we send more troops to Iraq, all we will see will be a short term drop in violence. The various factions find ways to subvert the increased security, and the violence will resurge. This is because they are fighting for IDEOLOGY. We learned this lesson in Vietnam, but because our commander-in-chief had a GPA of 2.3 in college, he didn't. You can't destroy and idea, and the Islamic people don't want western ideas.

As soon as we leave Iraq, their country will collapse into civil war, and the "democratic" government will most likely be overthrown. By that time, the Republicans (with all their corporate oil cronies will be out of office), and we can finally get down to the business of repairing the trillion dollar deficit that eight years of Bush and his buddies have created, along with all the collateral damage this "adventure in search of fossil fuel" has cost.

We would have been better just spending the money on becoming energy independent, and let China worry about getting the oil out of Iraq.

Answer 7

I think we should send in some fresh troops and remove the Geneva Convention restrictions. What country actually follows the Geneva Convention anyway? ONLY THE U.S. We are not fighting an army of trained soldiers; we are fighting a group of restless racists who have the nerve to send their pregnant women and young children out to U.S. troops with grenades and AK47's.

If we weren't so busy pussyfooting around for all the liberals who have no idea what they're talking about, we could get the job done.

Oh, by the way, Vietnam is practically the same way. We want our troops to go in there and get the job done with their f-ing hands tied behind their backs! Let 'em go! LET THEM DO THEIR JOBS SO WE CAN STILL BE ALIVE HERE DOING OURS! How would you like it if someone asked you to do an office job with your hands tied behind your back and all your coworkers furious that you aren't getting your job done?

Answer 8

Yes, I think we should sent more troops over. Our military appear's to need help, and I'm sure they would appreciate extra forces to back them up against a building resistance in several areas there.. I think we could hopefully get this job finished and get out of there. We have lost way way to many great hero's fighting for our freedom.. I dont know if they will ever get their government together, but if we try to get them a little closer and rid this place of the self destructors, ( or as many as possible ) , We might all be able to sleep a little better at night's .. especially anyone with a family member over there. What a terrible place to have to be..

Answer 9

No we should retrain the ones we would have sent to become assisins and go in search of Al Quaid operatives all of the world and kill them without a trial.

I don't recall the people at 9/11 had a trial. So kill them all - let them fear us. Let people be scared to join Al Quaida knowing if they are even associated with such an organization they will die!!!!!!!!!!!

Why should our country live in fear? We didn't need to go into Iraq in the first place - Sadam had nothing to do with 911! *** that he is - there are better places like Sudan that are actually slaughtering people where we can interven and do some good. As you notice Sadam at least maintained some order in Iraq!

Answer 10

There is no war to win in Iraq. Our presence has shaken this country, and revealed the differences of its peoples. Iraq is on the verge of a civil war, and in many ways it is because of our presence in Iraq. Sure, it was great that we got Saddam Hussein out of power. But we did not do a good job rebuilding the country, and it has now spiraled out of the military's control. The line between civilian and insurgent has grown too thin, therefore our only option is to focus all efforts on training Iraqis and redeploy our troops.

Answer 11

I think the question is how to finish. Sending more troops does not means it can finish.

If a real solution is to send more troops and it will be over with. I am all for it.

But I strongly doubt that it is the solution. I don't think there is one without doing something that is viewed as genocide by the world.