President Bush will tell the nation Wednesday he is sending more than 20,000 additional American forces to Iraq and acknowledge that it was a mistake not to have more U.S. and Iraqi troops before.
2007-01-10 03:53:55 · 15 answers · asked by akandaa 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Yes. We have to get Baghdad under control, but the Iraqi government needs to get rid of the militias too, or Iraq will never calm down.
The extra troops can also help take care of the remaining Saddamists and al Qaeda, as well as the Iranians that keep dropping in.
2007-01-10 04:05:26 · answer #1 · answered by Linea 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes I agree. The generals on the ground have said for a long time they need more people. The only problem I have with it is what took so long.
As for the people who are making statements about "the loss of 3000" well that is war. We lost 3000 on 9/11 to terrorist and that was unprovoked. I would much rather see us loose people to make the world better rather than see us loose them due to burring our heads in the sand. I have served in the middle east and I know what this is about to the Islamic extremest and they are not going to listen to negotiations. THEY WANT US DEAD>
2007-01-10 12:22:00 · answer #2 · answered by joevette 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The guy is a Fundamentalist Christian end of story !
He is worse, conceptually, than most the people he is fighting against or at LEAST on a par with.
He is well educated yet remains very stupid.
He is a danger to global security and will suck us all into wars to further his aim of an American -style democracy (no thanks) in all countries with generic boring American looking cities (with McD's and Subway's on every corner) every where (perish the thought!).
2007-01-10 12:16:57 · answer #3 · answered by Teacher 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes i back him. More troops may help solve the problems over there. I also agree in his choice to replace certain key generals that were too busy complaining and not charging onward like they should have been. If George Patton or Stormin Norman Swartzkoff was in charge over there, it would have been all taken care of by now.
2007-01-10 12:11:23 · answer #4 · answered by SGT. D 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I want my soldier home as much as the next girl. I'm not sure this is the answer, but I'm willing to hear him out. Hopefully he has an exit strategy because our troops are needed elsewhere (Somalia...).
2007-01-10 12:13:34 · answer #5 · answered by soldiergf 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with the President to send more troops. The more dead, gullible troops, the better.
2007-01-10 12:14:09 · answer #6 · answered by Jerry H 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I do not agree with sending more troops. Sending more troops has never worked before so why should it now? (korea, vietnam, el salvador, cambodia, nicaragua, dominican republic, etc.).
All that will happen is more people will die and the people in Iraq will be the worse for it.
2007-01-10 12:05:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
So what? Do you think the streets of Iraq listen to us anymore?
Do you think it will make a difference to the 3000 US service people dead? Will it make the wife or mother of a soldier feel less loss knowing our president made a 'mistake'?.
The only one he will acknowledge.
If it would make a difference, I'd go for it, but it won't, its been tried before and we now have a situation where just kicking butt won't do it. It is a waste of men and any of the generals who disagreed with him are long gone.
2007-01-10 11:59:39 · answer #8 · answered by justa 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
yes, i agree to increase troop levels for a final push to protect Iraq's forces and people while their own security forces are given responsibility to function alone. if this does not make a difference, we will never be able to force them to fight for their own freedom.
2007-01-10 11:58:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Bush will never admit to his mistakes.
2007-01-10 12:02:22 · answer #10 · answered by The answer guy 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋