2007-01-10 14:59:37 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Well... those are both synonyms. They mean the same thing. So the answer would be... yes?
I guess your question is supposed to be "Is adding 20,000 troops a good strategy?"
In that case, my answer is I don't know, you don't know, NOBODY ON YAHOO ANSWERS KNOWS! The only people who would know are the people in the government who have military experience and who have access to all of the classified information that actually gives them a complete understanding of the situation in Iraq.
Every idiot on the street these days seems to think that they're Napoleon what with they're critiques of our military strategies in Iraq. JUST SHUT UP. Every single gun-nut republican and every anarchist liberal has absolutely no grounds to discuss our strategy in Iraq since they get no information other than that passed down to them through the biased media and from their own dreadfully ignorant grasp of military strategy.
2007-01-10 15:08:59 · answer #1 · answered by Silver Hammer 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting it to turn out differently each time....
I'd say adding 20,000 troops in Iraq is insanity.
2007-01-10 23:10:22 · answer #2 · answered by LolaCorolla 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Look at it like this. Take an empty stadium that seats 70,000 people and put 20,000 people in it. How filled up is that stadium going to be? Not to full is it? This troop increase is a joke, i doubt if it makes a dent. 40,000 is more like what is needed. Bush is out of his mind.
2007-01-10 23:06:40 · answer #3 · answered by Third Uncle 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is an admission that his current policy in Iraq is failing and a last ditch effort to somehow hopefully stop the CIVIL WAR that currently exists in Iraq. He wants it to appear he is at least attempting to make an effort. He doesn't care he has 2 years left in his lame duck presidency!
2007-01-10 23:10:18 · answer #4 · answered by Brian A 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think its a stall tactic. Bush is stalling until he gets out of office and let someone else worry about cleaning up the mess. The next president - be it democrat or republican will have one hell of a job to do. And will probably end up being the one to get all the blame for losing the war, not Bush.
2007-01-10 23:04:10 · answer #5 · answered by War Chimp 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Personally, I think it's a tactic. You need brains for strategy. Bush has no brains.
2007-01-10 23:02:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anton Mathew 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't even rise to the level of a tactic, really. Just a minor adjustment.
2007-01-11 00:44:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
both....whatever it takes for white people to get the arabs buying blue jeans from their local wal-mart...we're just picking on an easy target (no weapons, worth a *****), lots o gold, lots o oil...we could give a s.hit less about helping or stopping evil or we'd be in n. korea, cambodia, africa, and many others worse (but not such an easy target)...this country speaks of individual freedom but most fears a free individual...youre kids are dying so i can get a ******** e-mail violation notice.....
2007-01-10 23:10:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it's an enormous bet that Bush is making with American lives and it tops the long list of monumentally disastrous decisions that he has made with his Iraq war.
2007-01-10 23:07:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
ok lets see what we have here.Violence because we are there?what would happen if we left?would they fall prey to another or are they strong enough to quell the disturbances?well bush weaseled his way out of nam ,every night he says thanks daddy.So sure why wouldn't he want to throw more gas on the fire and get our boys killed,hell i'm sure he is lining his pockets somehow well duh,is he in the oil bussiness lol?
2007-01-10 23:10:25 · answer #10 · answered by bjec22 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋