For all those who support sending in those 20,000+ extra troops into Iraq, can you please answer this for me?

Question

As we all know, sending in reinforcements have not brought about a positive result the last billion times we tried it. This is only 20,000 troops anyway. So what in the world makes you believe this strategy will work this time?
If anyone can answer this logically, I could consider their point of view. Until then, realize that there are heaps of evidence from the past that this strategy will once again backfire.

perfect american (misleading name), remember the "Mission Accomplished" speech he gave us back in 2004? We have had many troop extentions since then. Obviously we have. Aren't you paying attention? Additionally, the Iraq Study Group was Bi-Partisan. The democrats in general never supported a troop surge. Nor do they now. Nor do most Americans support that strategy. Do your homework, ok?

Answer 1

But it looks good on the front page of the paper.....

Answer 2

Your absolutely right. What is really needed is to invade Iran and stop the money used to pay for all the mercenaries causing trouble in Iraq, at its source. You see, that's the problem with all the left wing media lies and distortions. They use the term "insurgent" which implies Iraqis causing all the trouble and a brewing civil war. However, 90% of the people doing this are mercenaries from surrounding muslim countries. The only reason they are fighting is because they are paid. And the people paying them are the Iranian mullahs.

Now, we could simply kill them until they run out of mercenaries or it simply becomes so high risk that these people won't fight no matter how much they are paid. But that is slow, costs lives and, quite frankly, the world does not have the political will to maintain that stance for any length of time.

Bush's plan was to create a standing army of Iraqis that would make it foolish in the extreme for mercs to be active in Iraq. Unfortunately, the Iraqis are so corrupt and incompetent that Bush's plan has failed.

So, the best solution is to go after the players behind the scenes. Mop up the floor with iran and do to the iranian mullahs what was done to Hussein.

Answer 3

I would like to know of at least half of the billion other times we tried it. The only other time I can remember is the "Escalation" of troops in Viet Nam. escalation in this case would be instituting a draft and sending another hundred thousand. If you know of other instances where we had a surge of troop levels and it backfired, please post your sources.

The troop "Surge" was recommended by the Iraq Study Group. Do your research. The Democrats demanded a study be done to allow for recommendations. The president did what they wanted, he wants to implement some of the recommendations. The democrats are still whining. Whats up with that?

Answer 4

The extra 20,000 troops are going to be used to combat the insurgents in Baghdad, so the capital and therefore government will be stable. Once we wipe out a few more terrorists, then Iraq will be stable and the US will accomplish its goal: a stable Iraq, which is not happening now.

Answer 5

How do you apply logic to a question/statement that says the US has sent reinforcements a billion times in the past and it has not worked.

You should take a few deep breaths and put together a question that is coherent and invites intelligent comments from both sides of this issue, not just your side.

Answer 6

If we don't send new troops, what will our "New Direction" be? Are you saying we should "Stay the Course"? Our President will only accept ideas that will allow us to "Win" this war. I hope you're not prepared to just say "Mission Accomplished" and go home.

It is widely accepted that 20, 000 new troops is the number required to invent the new platitudes required to elect a Republican President in 2008.

Don't be such a defeatist. Leaving now will dishonor the 3,000 Americans that have perished in this struggle. And leaving four years from now will dishonor the next 3,000. And four years after that and so on and so on.

Answer 7

Because the Soldier in the Field AKA "Johnny on the Spot" thinks it's a good idea. I never argue with the guy who is putting his neck on the line.

Answer 8

i imagine all animals will visit heaven. in spite of the undeniable fact that they are not examined on the earth, they have actual souls too like human beings, basically that they have got constrained minds, so as that they cant choose accurate or incorrect, won't be able to imagine extreme minds like human beings. yet they're all muslims, bow to Allah & they are going to be resurrected on the day of judgement and all of them will enter heaven without hisab. because human beings are ones who're examined, we can both visit heaven or hell.

Answer 9

I think the idea behind war is to KILL the enemy and break their stuff. More US soldiers shooting at THE ENEMY means more DEAD ISLAMOFASCISTS.

Now, for those of you who haven't figured this out yet, - The only way out of Iraq is through Iran.

Answer 10

Looks like you already have your mind made up from your comments. Me, I'm waiting to hear the speech.

Answer 11

we are oly doing this because we ruined iraqs government. They do not appreciate what we do for them so the american troops should leave iraq because it does no good just standing there and watching for criminals. iraq is pretty much dead anyways why not leave it?