President Bush declaired today that he is sending more troops to Iraq. I want to know if you all are in agreeince or not. And if you agree, why?
2007-01-10 17:54:02 · 14 answers · asked by Wheelie 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
This war is a waste of money, time and blood. Can you remember another time in history when we made the same mistake? I can and the angry veterans who still suffer from those false backs and side affects from chemicals. The president is a a** who needs to go to Iraq himself and see the "Progress" he promises us when he gets his TV time. I personally think he knows he's made a mistake but is too proud to stop it. It'll stop when his a** is out of office and a new president (a democrat) will bring troops home where they belong.
2007-01-10 18:08:58 · answer #1 · answered by loveyoumuch 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The president want to use Iraq once more for his own personal interests. Iraq war solution is never a military one. Iraq is part of the Middle East and there is a big fire in the Middle East called Israel occupation. The President new strategy will not change a thing with out ending the Israeli old occupation and there is not one middle Eastern country is willing to help him including Israel.
Bush must Listen to his father more and Baker-Hamilton report and to both President Carter and Clinton. I say Bush should send Baker and Hamilton to the Middle East they are = all the troops in Iraq.
2007-01-11 03:10:23 · answer #2 · answered by DAVAY 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If Bush and the generals were actually smart, those 20,000 troops could each train 38 Iraqis to be police officers which would bring the total Iraqi police force to 895,000 police officers (1 per 30 civilians) by September or October. This would cut down on Iraq's 25% unemployment and put the hold in clear and hold (how insurgents are fought). If those 20,000 were put on patrol instead, there would be clear but no hold.
2007-01-11 03:00:33 · answer #3 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In spring 1953, newly-elected President and former General Dwight Eisenhower reversed his predecessor's course and declared victory in Korea. Eisenhower started drawing down our troop strength. He established a strong presence along the DMZ so the North Koreans couldn't march down the Peninsula. He left a major security force to protect our interests in the region.
Sadly, President Lyndon Johnson continually increased the number of troops in and above Vietnam. President Johnson approved one surge after another. Look at the outcome.
2007-01-11 02:32:25 · answer #4 · answered by Blu 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I will answer with the same answer that I gave to another question similiar to this. An article in the Military Oahu Star, By Oliver North states: "Adding 10,00 or 20,000 more U.S. troops isn't going to improve Iraqi willingness to fight their own fight---an imperative, if we are to claim victory in this war. All soldiers that were interviewed stated that they don't need more American troops, but more IRAQI troops. They are absolutely right. A "surge" or "targeted increase in U.S. troop strength" or whatever the polititians want to call dispatching more combat forces to Iraq isn't the answer. Adding more trainers and helping the Iraqis to help themselves IS. Sending more U.S. combat troops is simply sending more targets."
I stand by Oliver North's statement 100% He has said the first really logical statement that I have heard in a long time!
2007-01-11 02:08:41 · answer #5 · answered by Nancy D 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No. Not at all. I disagree for several reasons:
1. Even the generals say that 21,00 will not be enough. That's like driving a race car with only 3 wheels.
2. The Iraqis aren't doing enough to police themselves.
3. Bush knows the way he handled the war was a mistake. I feel he's grabbing at straws to try to find a quick fix. The problem is that the straws he's grabbing are American fighting men and women, and they deserve better.
2007-01-11 02:02:01 · answer #6 · answered by tranquility_base3@yahoo.com 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
One has to be a Moron with the lowest decency to agree with the president. 3000+ soldiers died, Countless others have been maimed and injured, + 100's of thousands of Iraqi's have been murdered and raped, Iraq has been turned into ruins, and Halliburton executives have filled their pockets with Billion$ so far. So do you still think sending more troops will solve this problem? I am sure you can answer that yourself if you have a shred of intelligence.
2007-01-11 02:02:37 · answer #7 · answered by h8gwb 3 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I have been trying to answer this question for almost a hour. Someone needs to lrt people know how to answer...... If you want a answer then make it easier to answer..... NO if thepresident had ever serve in the trenches than the answer would be different..
Other than understanding from reports---- send his *** to the front lines and see how fast he changes his mind.. If he tells america anything different then he lying like all other politians...
I think they all suck......
2014-11-08 20:02:06 · answer #8 · answered by peter 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I disagree.
Without the increased troop levels, it would be "stay the course". The troop surge is the only new policy of the "New Way Forward".
He is sending men and women into harms way to self servingly support his party's rhetoric.
It is immoral and probably criminal.
2007-01-11 02:15:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Simply because it is the words of the President of United States of America!!!
As he had said before, better be attacked in foreign soil than in the homeland soil.
And last but not the least, who knows what the world would be without the intervention of the Americans and the United Nations? Chaotic order, Kings with a vagabond subjects, leaders by fear and corruptions, and God forbid, by Moses!
2007-01-11 02:06:52 · answer #10 · answered by wacky_racer 5 · 0⤊ 5⤋