Would there be more support for the surge of troops in Iraq?

Question

If it was guaranteed to bring our men and women home sooner?

Hypothetically of course, or is it just that it is Bush's plan that makes people mad?

Answer 1

Libs would find fault with Bush if he secured world peace, ended hunger, cured all diseases, ended homelessness, and banished Paris Hilton to Antartica.

Nothing he says or does is ever good enough for these people. And if Bush didn't exist and it was some other Republican, they'd rip him to pieces too.

The point: they're not in the White House, and that's all they care about. Period.

Answer 2

He did admit that he did make mistakes on his planning. Our troops will be back sooner if the following is done. Have the Iraq military do more of the fighting with our troops being the support. Give less to the police force and more the their military. Work on their intelligent without it being compromised. Have more boots in the problem cities and around the border areas. All this and some other items will help end the conflict. But remember After WWll we stayed in germany after the war for over 10 years and in Japan we were there over 15 years and we still have bases there.

Answer 3

Here in lies the problem.

The liberal politicians equate any war with Vietnam. The fact is that if we pull out of Iraq it leaves a power void in the middle east which is a breeding ground for hostility for anything that doesn't represent a 7th century ideologue.

Radical Islamists are a danger, Iraq is a battleground. What if we had said, let the French decide their fate to the Germans at the Battle of the Bulge? Much of Europe would be speaking German to this day. Or what if Lincoln had "cut and run" at the first sign of criticism from his critics in Congress, or FDR had been told only to fight the Japanese in WWII?

War is a fact we need to face, the only way to WIN a war is to fight it. Radical Islam declared war on the west back in the 1990s The Clinton Administration failed to admit it was a threat enough to take unpopular action against it. We have seditionists and traitors in the US Congress that had they been around during the FDR administration would have been brought up on "Aiding and Abetting the enemy charges"

Total War is not what we are fighting today, and frankly the lack of collateral damage is telling as to why it the lack of political will to take the necessary actions to rid the world of evils such as Hussein, PolPot, The Taliban will cost us all in the long run..

The old Fram Oil Filter ad comes to mind.. You can pay now, or pay me later. We fight now, and the cost while seemingly high will be much less then if we ignore the problem and hope it goes away.

Denial is not a river in Egypt. Denial is a threat as well.

Google the "Obsession" and view it. It is a well done documentary of the threat posed by radical Islam. Deny it and we all pay.

Answer 4

Unless US troops start acting like soldiers at war rather than soldiers working for the UN... we will never see the end of it.

I will only support it if they go in hard and clean the place up. And if that mean losing some innocent civilians in the process... so be it... they want us to free them... and freedom comes at a price.

The rebels are killing any Iraqis which is not muslim or do not conform to the muslim religion.
50.000 Iraqis have to flee Iraq every month to escape death threats from the rebel. They become refugee in Jordan or Syria where they are not welcome.

The insanity has to stop. At home... we keep talking about freedom and unity... This is why we are in Iraq. To give freedom to the people of Iraq.

You don't want anyone to die. This is very noble. But name one time in the whole human history where people had not to sacrifice their life for the sake of freedom. As long as there are tyrants prepared to kill for power... people will die.

Why is it OK for the rebels to murder civilians... but it is not OK for US soldiers to kill civilians by accident because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Answer 5

No to win war in Iraq we need at least 7 million soldiers the population of Baghdad like one each for every Iraqi. Is it possible? No. Then Bush should listen to the majority of the Americans and senators and start pulling out Iraq. If the Iraq is in flames then let those Iraqis go to dogs. Why we should care?

Answer 6

If it was guaranteed to bring them home sooner, does that mean more of them come home in body bags? I would rather see less troops killed or injured.

I really don't care who put this plan into fruition, I don't like the idea of more troops. It is clear that Bush had no plan past the fall of Bagdad to secure this country and he had zero understanding of the sectarian nature of Iraq.

Answer 7

There has been no guarantee or even any suggestion that this escalation will bring our men and women home sooner.

Answer 8

NO! Cause the real truth and reasons are not address still! USA has bigger problems with higher priorities, Mostly getting its own homeland internally in order addressing personal financial security for legal Americans & the existing levels of poverty which are between 20%-25% of its people depending on the criteria used in determination! Also unbalenced trade issues and loss of industry & jobs to the east! Want more examples of Bush in your face lying last night public address "The Iraqis must keep their promise to defend their own country otherwise they will lose the support of the American people" Bushes comment DUUUH. Who here in USA is stupid enough to buy that one! American support for this war was chuck-out some time ago. This man or the people who wrote the script need to take the piss-test!

Answer 9

No!
it is the fact that Bush ignored all his advisers who told him that in the first place, causing more troop casuualties, while he looked for one more exuse to stay there longer without doing what needed to be done, while people died.
He did this, because he was playing politics with people's lives, like the Bush family is notorious for.
NOW, since his party got stomped on november 7th, he wants to send more in, now that he doesn't have to worry so much about the bills, and the death toll!

to make it simple what makes people mad, is the fact that he was advised from the get-go there weren't enough troops. he ignored his advisers, and the advice of people who actually has been in action, AND NOW he wants to send more in.

when are you people going to get sick of people like Bush playing games with our lives???

afterall, Bush claimed we were doing so well in Irraq, so were all his supporters. since when do you change a strategy when you are winning??
YOU DON'T, so either he was lying then, or he is lying now. which one is it?

Answer 10

I support this action, and I also support the change in strategy, maybe now we can kill some trouble makers and stop Iran from stirring the pot. Killing terrorist is what is going to bring this to an end, Iraq has to secure their country.

Answer 11

I don't think anyone belives a troop surge has anything to do with bringing them home sooner.

It's about escalation, it's about Iran and Syria, and it's about a President attempting to save his legacy against all odds.