He said that "only Iraqis can end" the civil war there. Then he said we need more troops to end the violence there. If only they can end it, why do we send more? Why try a strategy that has failed 3 times already?
He said we are going to hold Iraqi neighborhoods from police stations. So instilling martial law in a military police state and engaging in urban warfare is good? His speech makes it sound like WE control the Iraqi government and tell it to enact certain laws.
Giving guns to Iraqi army people will likely just get insurgents to sign up and get free guns, quit the Iraqi army and then go into local warfare. This is a recipe for disaster.
Iraq is about to fall off the brink into hell, and our policy is just dumping kerosene on a raging fire.
2007-01-10 13:12:10 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Well my friend, this policy wasnt decided by beuruacrats, highly educated and much more inteligent and informed on this issue, than either you and I. Having said that I think this plan could actually work, instead of just pouring in troops to Iraq, he is sending them there with specific missions, for local building projects and to train the Iraqi security forces, Prime Minister Al-Maliki had vowed to disarm the Mahdi Army, and is sending Kurdish Sunni's into Baghdad. Hopefully the threats by the Prime Minister wont prove to be hollow. Either way things are about to heat up again.
2007-01-10 13:23:40 · answer #1 · answered by asmith1022_2006 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush isn't insane - his advisors are. This is what he SHOULD do:
1. Pull all press from Iraq - any press member still in Iraq one week from now will be executed.
2. Bring home 80% of our troops now
3. Give orders to the remaining 20% that you shoot first and ask questions later. If Iraq is going to Hell, lets give them a head start. If not, let's kill the insurgents and let the sanes ones have a chance.
2007-01-10 13:21:08 · answer #2 · answered by sethsdadiam 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bush is hoping to sheild HIMSELF and his cronies from prosecution even as he's unavoidably impeached and delivered up on warfare Crimes expenses. The record of what has been carried out with approval from the optimal ranks of authorities isn't some thing that could want to be compared to "college Pranks" as Fr_Chuck exhibits. we are speaking about electrocution, drowning, beatings. even as the Geneva convention become followed by way of all civilized international locations, they knew that it would want to diminish the quantity of options they could extract from a prisoner. This become the fee they were prepared to pay to be civilized. call, rank and serial form. Now we are meant to believe that some diverse set of regulations could practice because they're labelled "terrorists"??? delivery them to secret centers, having no illustration, out of the watchful eye of the red go. we've stooped very low for my section. we've violated the soveriegnty of yet another u . s ., destroying it below pretend pretenses. we are to blame for the deaths of untold civilians. Powell has ultimately spoken up and that i anticipate more effective to do an identical. The tide is popping and we can see the deck of playing cards that Bush has outfitted commence to tumble very quickly.
2016-12-28 16:03:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can't disagree that the situation there is bad but if we just pull out won't that leave Iraq open for either a bloody revolution or takeover from Iran? I understand that you don't agree with the current policy, but I don't hear any alternatives either. I have to ask you, what is the answer?
2007-01-10 13:19:22 · answer #4 · answered by jimstock60 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I thought that he was long ago Way back w hen he was still the Governor of Texas Lots of Coke and Jack Daniels for many years tends to do that to a person
2007-01-10 13:20:03 · answer #5 · answered by bisquedog 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Its not Bush, Bush is only the puppet on the stage, the insanity is all the infrastructure underneath. The american government is insane.
Folks it is time for a revolution.
2007-01-10 13:28:45 · answer #6 · answered by roger a 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Only Iraqi's can end CIVIL WAR. The insurgents are not part of that civil war.
There are two types of killing going on over there. One, from the insurgents who are funded by the likes of iran and/or syria, and the ones who are killing fellow iraqi's because of a differ in sects.
So no, he is not going insane. he is merely addressing more than one issue to people who can not comprehend more than one at a time.
2007-01-10 13:17:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
Ugh! I'm sick of all this "terrorist" b.s.!
The U.S. has troops in Iraq for one reason only: OIL
There has ALWAYS been a threat for potential terrorist strikes. If these damn rednecks would step out of the backwoods, they would realize that.
2007-01-10 13:19:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Better be attacked by the enemies in the Iraq's soil than in the homeland's soil. = Bush
2007-01-10 13:19:08 · answer #9 · answered by wacky_racer 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
i think he was already a nut job, and i totally agree with you on everything else. furthermore its obviously bush's intention to throw fuel on the fire I think he thrives on death and destruction. makes you wonder who the real terrorist is
2007-01-10 13:21:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋