Should George Bush be allowed to send another 30 to 40000 troops to Iraq.?

Question

this will be announced by dubya next week.

For henry-56 I am just asking a question not making a statement.

Answer 1

nope

Answer 2

Yes I think he should.The only way we are going to win is with more force.Im sick of hearing all the hippy comments, about how bush sucks blah blah blah.He may not be the greatest speaker, but hes a fine president.I love President Bush, hes a great one and he gets the job done.just like how saddam died, thats what we should do here in the USA is hang criminals for what they done within 30 days and not wait a life time.then there would be less crime!all the hippys speak of peace but the other countrys are not peaceful no matter how you are, so you have to fight fire with fire.war has happend sents the beginning of time get use to it, its not gunna get any better.if America was run by all hippy liberals our country would be gone and owned by some other dictating country.

Answer 3

Don't be ridiculous please !

He should replace the 77% of US troops he had withdrawn from AFGHANISTAN - the REAL area of conflict they should be in dealing with the alleged terrorists of the 9/11 attrocities, who are alleged to be hiding in the caves and bunnkers there in AFGHANISTAN, as well as being trained there.

Instead, his actions left the UK troops grossly under-manned and under-resourced , yet there to help US troops, Tony Bliar having been asked by George W Bush to deploy troops to AFGHANISTAN ONLY !

To even THINK of sending so many to Iraq would be like a slap in the face to UK troops - already struggling due to many NATO countries refusing to allow thier few troops to be deployed in AFGHANISTAN in anything other then an admin role - NOT "war fighting role" -

If George W Bush adheres to his hidden mandarins advise re sending so many US troops to Iraq, Tony Bliar should IMMEDIATELY withdraw 77% of all UK troops out of AFGHANISTAN AND Iraq ... which should re-focus the minds of those US advisors.

The source of the conflict on terror is in AFGHANISTAN NOT Iraq - contrary to all media reports - which have taken the spotlight off this FACT !!

Enough is enough. UK/NATO troops were willing to do thier share, but, after the sly withdrawal of 77% of US troops from the SOURCE of the so called "US war on terror campaign" - INSTIGATED by USA...such a concept of 30-40,000 more US troops being sent to Iraq defies belief and logic !

Another concept is - why doesn't he send 10,000 of those 30-40,000 to AFGHANISTAN to make up for the 77% of US troops he had withdrawn, and to appease NATO's cries for more troops in AFGHANISTAN... and the bonus is, a brownie point for George W Bush for trying to rectify the damage cause by withdrawing 77% of US troops leaving UK troops to sort the mess out once again !.. whilst still under-manned and under-resourced because Tony Bliar (sic) has not made good his verbal PROMISES to ensure UK troops have whatever they WANT... not just NEED.. but WANT in AFGHANISTAN !!

Answer 4

If this is the best strategy the men in charge come up with im sure the troops will be going.
It is not a question about being allowed. It is about finding the best way to get a region stable.

Answer 5

I have no idea what he plans to achieve with that. If he wants to win the only solution left is to reinstate the draft. Then he has to train them, pour about a million well armed and half trained kids into Iraq. Let them shoot anything that even looks mean. Curl your lip on the other side, shoot 'em on the spot. Forget about this enemy combants deal. If they are captured not in a uniform, carrying arms, get whatever they know out of 'em quick and fast, get rid of them. A village or city resists? Bomb and shell it to a ruin and then take whats left. Sounds extreme don't it? But that is about the only way left to win this mess. Conquer a peace or leave are the only alternatives.

Answer 6

The question is a mute point. As Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, The President can send as many soldiers as he wants to.

Answer 7

if the United States of America was democratic
it wouldn't happen

because of the Patriot Act and the likes... Bush can very well do what ever his little heart desires

Ha.. ha... ha.. and he wants to establish democracy in Iraq...
WHAT A JOKE!!!

of the President, for the President and by the President and is Gestapo.

Answer 8

As a conservative myself, NO!!

The problem is not that we don't have enough troops there, the problem is our troops have their hands politically tied. They need to be able to do their jobs, then they can come home. The politically correct police are the ones to blame for this. Not the President and not our Troops.

God bless them all!

Answer 9

Well, as the President of the United States he is certainly allowed. It's a pity that he's actually become president. He's an idiot and a motormouth.

Answer 10

He shouldn't be allowed to be President of United States, let alone send more troops to Iraq. 2008 can't come soon enough for me!

Answer 11

should he be allowed???? As president of the U.S. he is allowed.. this is one of the many responsibilities he has as our president. This is why we all should participate in the election process. If you are asking should he send more troops to Iraq?, then that is another question... I am glad I am not president and have to make that decision. Maybe we should all do more praying for George W. at this time so that he will be wise enough to make the correct decision.. God Bless America and God Bless George W.