former pow john McCain is calling for more boots on the ground in Iraq do you agree or disagree?

Question

the war isnt going as planed putting in more troops seems to little to late we need to get our people out of harms way not more into harms way,

Answer 1

the point of defeating terrorists or other rogue countries is not to see how many people u can get out of harms way. this seems to be your contention. going to war is by definition to put yourself in harms way, so this should not be a consideration.

there should prob be more troops, that for military to decide. certainly there needs to be a decision on what it will take to blast every enemy we have in that country to hell where they belong. with al sadyr being the problem he is, and with the iraqi troops being as worthless as they have been, more troops probably needed.

bigger question is...are we gonna let them kick *** and take names afterward? or worry about so called civilian casualties?

it needs to be abundantly clear that everyone over there must decide whether they are part of the solution or dead.

and we certainly have the ability to do that.

Answer 2

Initally, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and all the other neocons believed that the an invasion of Iraq could be done with a very small force in a very short amount of time. After the inital 'shock and awe' campaigns against the Republican Guard, American troops were suposed to hand over the country's control to the Iraqi National Congress and immediatley change focus to training the new Iraqi police. Then the United States could withdraw and move on to Syria and Iran.

NATO's intervention in Yugoslavia to stop the genocide proved that an invading power can only achieve legitamacy if it can provide security. When the allied forces failed to protect the Bosnian civillians from the Serbian milita, the people turned to Islamist terrorist groups for protection. When NATO finally put boots on the ground, they tried to have one soldier for about a thousand or so civillians. Since there were so many of them, they didn't have to rely on speed or strength of force.

L. Paul Bremer and other adminisrtaion heads knew that. But instead of bringing in 400,000 or so troops, they brought less than half that amount and forced individal soldiers to use strong arm tacits and intimadaton. Dozens of innocent civillians were placed in Abu Grahib, questioned, and immediately released.

The Democrats want to immediately withdraw the troops. Ethnic hatred in Iraqi would probably grow so heated that the civil war turns into a Cambodia-sytle exterminaton campaign. Most Americans could live with that (Did anyone care about Rwanda until that movie came out?). Although that would mean more or less giving up fighting al Queda abroad instead of at home, at least it leaves us with some dignity.

The Republicans beside McCain want to start a Vietnam-esqe cycle of 'bomb, negotiate, bomb, negotate'. The US would allow Iran to have nukes if they loosen their strings on Iraqi Shia until the US finally trains enough Iraqi fighters to fight for themslevens. Then US troops withraw to the sidelines to see the Iraqi police get destroyed.

Rather than 'staying the course' or a 'phased redeployemnt', putting more troops on the ground would finally make an effort twoard provideing security to the IRaqi's themselves. Retired general Anthony C. Zinni, staunch opponent of the war from the very beginning,told the New York Times, "There is a premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough now, that there is a capability that they have not employed or used. I am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence... it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to 'regain momentum' as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces."

Answer 3

I trust McCain (despite the fact that i can traditionally vote for Obama) The matters i've heard from different infantrymen (im in officer coaching correct now so i've but to peer movement) permit me recognize that we NEED to be there for slightly longer. Very unhealthy matters could occur if the USA left all of the sudden similar to a big surge in sectarian violence and the reappearance of many warlords and different unhealthy men and women. The US is doing such a lot well over there, do not finish it, and do not consider unhealthy for the warriors.... we did signal up for this. Another notice... it kind of feels like no person needs battle however all people needs movement.... seem at somalia or sudan, there's such a lot evil occurring there and the US might with no trouble finish it however have been held again via men and women that feel battle is by no means an choice. Bad men and women dont reply to negotiations however bullets paintings simply excellent.

Answer 4

Because politicians wish to make us dance and we do dance for their slogans we are sometimes led to believe that things are just amazingly simple and you must be stupid to disagree. Things like Iraq are pretty complicated situations and will be debated for decades. I would have been happy if we had deposed the former dictatorship and then told the UN they had no more than 30 days to get a peacekeeping force on the ground because our job was to topple the regime which we did in a few days, and the UN's job is peacekeeping and nation building. But we allowed ourselves to be stuck there doing nation building. It does not appear that you can make a nation much less democracy among people who are pretty ignorant and who follow self procliamed clerics around by the lips. The UN would not have placed a peacekeeping force, of course, as they can not muster a day trip to Central Park without two years debate and two billion in logistics. But it would have been on their head and not ours. I saw we get the troops out now but I think what McCain is talking about is make one last sweep of the militia strong points and then take a hike back to the U.S. What a lot of the new Dem lawmakers think is that the nation wants to cut and run and I don't think that is so but as a lifelong Dem I can tell you my party seems to be pretty stupid about what America wants and thats why the Dem Party creates people like W and puts him to power by being more stooopid then he could ever be. McCain showed a lot of moxy by saying what he had been told by the Generals on the ground there and of course since he could be a candidate for Prez and he is a lousy politician the blimps in D.C. will feed out all kinds of stuff about him. So do we know what is right? Naw, we just get what the politicians think we want to hear and the media in this country is worthless. So I dunno whats happening....and no one else does either.

Answer 5

I just don't know. If the generals think we need a surge to knock out what needs to be done to get our people out; then I can see it. But John McCain is not a general.

Answer 6

The real problem is they didn't send in enough troops to begin
with. They should have sent three full divisions and followed that
with another division a month later.

That's what I would have done, and that"s why you wouldn't
want me as your President.

MERRY CHRISTMAS and have a nice day.

Thank you very much, while you're up!!!!

Answer 7

Yeah and Radical Islam can then send more boots over here. Sorry,but I agree with Johnny Mac

Answer 8

No

I think we need to have ,more air support for the ground troops.

If a patrol takes fire, take cover and let the aviators blow the area up.

Answer 9

What a difficult situation, I am really not sure, but I believe in Senator Mc Cain, he is a good man, maybe we need to trust his judgment.

Answer 10

Too late. The generals don't want them either.