2007-01-10 07:12:00 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No, it is a waste of time, it won't make any difference, and more people will die.
FP
2007-01-10 07:14:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Since there is NO clear cut definition to Bush's idea of victory. The Mission was Accomplished 3 years ago, supposedly. More than 3000 soldiers dead. My best friend from High school about to be deployed for the 3rd time. Maybe he won't come home,,Bush is a arrogant, stubborn man who is NOT fit to be a Dog catcher,,let alone the leader of the Free World.
2007-01-10 07:14:52 · answer #2 · answered by Sean 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good you're back,that was an outrage your suspension.Keep those q's coming.
I could see myself supporting a troop increase under the right conditions.Unfortunately I doubt president Bush can give me the confidence I need for that to happen.But let's hear him out.If victory can be achieved,I'm willing to hear it.
Still serious skepticism here of anything coming form the white house on Iraq.
we don't need an effort to prolong the war so Bush doesn't have to be the one pulling out.
2007-01-10 07:21:14 · answer #3 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with Perduabo. It is a waste of time. 20K trooops arent't going to make a difference. The Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force says we should have deployed 250K to 500K in the begining. You are not going to control a population in chaos and a secatarian war of 6 million like Bhagdad with 40k troops. Sorry but that hapening. Bush broke it. He never had a clear cut goal. It's too late unless we are going to send 200K troops. It's time to lick our wounds, go home and fix America.
2007-01-10 07:23:09 · answer #4 · answered by opinionator 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because there has never been a clear-cut definition of our "goals" in Iraq and there never will be.
The time for "clear-cut" definitions was when this thing started.
I SUPPORT OUR TROOPS so I'm against Bush feeding more 19-21 year old innocent kids into the meat grinder in Iraq for his pointless, aimless, impossible-to-win war effort.
2007-01-10 07:17:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The ultimate goal is to keep Iraqi oil out of the hands of the French, the Germans and the Turks. Bush is will to share a little of it with the Brits, but nobody else.
2007-01-10 07:17:32 · answer #6 · answered by Preacher 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not even considering Iraq, our active duty troop levels are way too low. As far as Iraq is concerned, we should send a force of about 100,000 military police to secure the population. More combat troops are not necessary.
2007-01-10 07:26:04 · answer #7 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't matter...I want to know if people want a troop increase...where exactly do you expect to get these troops? Are we going to send troops for 3rd and 4th tours? Do a draft? I know for a fact that military recruiting offices aren't exactly being swarmed to by new recruits. My friend is the highest recruiter in the state and his quota is 1 new recruit a month.
2007-01-10 07:25:02 · answer #8 · answered by Jamie R 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. we need to bring our men and women home. we should never had gone there. This war could last for years. We had no right to go there we were lied to and deceived by our own government. If the president feels so strongly about this war he should send his daughters over there lets not allow this to continue.We can not afford to lose anymore Americans over this. Where is Osama?
2007-01-10 07:22:09 · answer #9 · answered by ziggy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, of course. Let's send all our troops over there,
"get er done", claim victory, and bring em all home then.
That's what we all should be saying as Americans.
I really can't tell what Democrat's goals are.....waving
the white flag I guess. Wimps.
2007-01-10 07:19:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
absolutely not! no need to put more troops into the midst of a ragin civl war where we are attacked by both sides, pull out now!
2007-01-10 07:17:02 · answer #11 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋