Is he an idiot or what?? what do you think?
2007-01-08 09:12:39 · 17 answers · asked by Fashionista 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
To Blabster9,
Umm, I don't think that this war is going to end "quicker" by sending more troops.. if anything, it'll go on for another couple years and kill more troops. dum dum.
2007-01-08 09:25:28 · update #1
THANK YOU rawlings12345! for telling it like it is.
2007-01-08 10:02:37 · update #2
An answer from an Army soldier, me.
He is an idiot. The last thing Iraq needs is more of us to go over there. I know what the Iraqi people think, because I've spoke with them! All you people that think 20,000 more troops ISN'T enough, are quite frankly, smoking crack. Our presence is what increases violence. With a massive withdrawal, we would in-turn quell the sectarian violence. As long as we left a few brigades (possibly 3?) for continual training of Iraqi forces, we would be fine.
"Send in more troops, we should have done that a long time ago!" You people are stupid. If 140,000 troops carrying AT MINIMUM 210 rounds of ammunition EACH can't quell violence after 4 years, then what is another 20,000 gonna do? Morons. Enlist, and go over there yourself if you feel your thoughts are so wise.
2007-01-08 09:42:38 · answer #1 · answered by rawlings12345 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We should have a draft, flood Afghanistan and Iraq with troops then invade Iran. Since Iran is sandwiched between those two countries, Tehran would be within our hands very shortly. Oh, Bush is not an idiot. Quit watching CNN.
2007-01-08 17:28:44 · answer #2 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think that additional troops have been needed for a long time. Most probably from the very beginning.
2007-01-08 17:27:45 · answer #3 · answered by violet 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why would you suggest that sending more troops to Iraq makes him an idiot? Everyone is saying the same thing; that we're winning the individual battles, but the terrorists leave one city, move to another, and they're too few troops to maintain one city while fighting in another.
I think this decision is long overdue.
2007-01-08 17:16:03 · answer #4 · answered by billy d 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
well if we want to get out of iraq we need to send more troops in so we dont fail the job and be attacked by more terorists so i guess lets jsut send in enouph troops to get the job done in a hurry
2007-01-08 17:16:43 · answer #5 · answered by blabster91 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Well he is an idiot, as far as im concerned but since we are in this mess, and we are sending more troops over there. I do agree it needs to be greater than 20,000.
2007-01-08 17:25:31 · answer #6 · answered by striderknight2000 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think you don't know his plan yet, as he will not be formally announcing it till Wednesday. Or did he just now phone you up to let you in on it ahead of everyone else. Or maybe you are just hateful and refuse to believe that the man is capable of mistakes and capable of remedies. I kinda think you just want support for your hate but that's just my view.
2007-01-08 17:16:28 · answer #7 · answered by Rich B 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I agree with him, except I think 20,000 is low. So does John McCain, Christopher Dodd, and Joe Lieberman!
2007-01-08 17:15:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
we need to go over there to conquer iraq,not to be police,we need to be victors,not cops,more troops will eliminate the threat.
2007-01-08 17:39:58 · answer #9 · answered by schflng 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The big commander in the area said it would take three more years....can our taxes cover that and are we willing to pay more.
2007-01-08 17:15:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋