what kind if democrat moron would think that increasing troops in iraq would increase insurgency? would increasing police on the streets increase violence? how about we get rid of police altogether? i could get rid of leftists that way at least...
2006-12-26 06:52:14 · 10 answers · asked by allahsucks.islamsucks.hajjsucks 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I'm not sure if General Casey and General Abizaid would appreciate being called "Democrat morons."
The Democrat's plan for Iraq is based on testimony from the Generals on the ground. These Generals have consistantly said an increase in troops would contribute to the Iraqis view of us as "occupiers" thus increasing attacks. If you want to argue with the Generals go right ahead. But don't make it seem like Democrats got this idea out of thin air.
2006-12-26 07:00:48 · answer #1 · answered by Mrs. Bass 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Since the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, there has been a fairly steady increase in troops deployed in Iraq. There has also been a steady increase in insurgents. The insurgency, though not necessarily caused by troop deployment has taken advantage of the lack of local control and the fall of what was a strong central government.
The fall of Saddam created a power vacuum that many are quite happy to attempt to fill. The police analogy doesn't really fit and getting rid of police alltogether would be a recipe for chaos.
It is not numbers that count. It is the effectiveness of those that are stationed.
2006-12-26 15:05:11 · answer #2 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
"would increasing police on the streets increase violence"
Trying to keep order in Baghdad isn't the same thing as policing the streets of Philadelphia, or New York, or Chicago. The Iraqis just
2006-12-26 15:02:20 · answer #3 · answered by Snowshoe 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Dear uninformed,
There has been a co-relation between dead soldiers and the amount of people sent to Iraq . The more we send the more that die. Yes, it would be nice to have a solid plan in place with the proper amount of troops from the beginning. Unfortunately we don't have the intelligent leadership that we would have wanted or might have in the future.
How many helmets is Cher going to have to buy!!
2006-12-26 14:58:45 · answer #4 · answered by Stop K 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The analogy you use is severly flawed. The insurgents would have more targets, and in many cases they are lying, getting weapons and training from us, deserting their "post" and shooting our boys with our weapons.
Since whenever we leave they will fight no matter how long we wait then why wait? Do we wait to just increase the number of our troops who die needlessly? More American and Brittish blood spilled will not stop people who have been fighting with each other for 6000 years from continuing their feud.
2006-12-26 15:04:13 · answer #5 · answered by vertical732 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, first they wanted all the troops pulled out. Now
the talk is to put more in. (except for Biden).I don't see
how more troops could hurt anything.....maybe the war
would progress faster, and soon be over.
2006-12-26 14:57:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You should read fangtaiya's response again. Your question is so shallow it's scary, except I feel you may be on the cusp of an intellectual breakthrough when spell moron correctly. What a waste.
2006-12-26 15:23:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Good observation. As my alter ego Spock said "Humans are highly illogical".
2006-12-26 16:12:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Troop surge will mean nothing but more American mothers weeping for their dead sons.
2006-12-26 14:58:46 · answer #9 · answered by Kwan Kong 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
listen ....are you listening. we have failed horribly in Iraq to many Americans have died for Bush's private war....not you want to send in more targets for them... bring them home..or go yourself
2006-12-26 15:01:39 · answer #10 · answered by Unfrozen Caveman 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋