Adding Robert Gates suggested 92000 long term (5 years) soldiers and confronting Iran and Syria is way better than the current policy. On the other hand a total withdrawal would be nice too. The Democrats that do not want a troop increase but are afraid to support a withdrawal are the true people that would effect a "stay the course" situation. Either total commitment or total withdrawal is better than this slow drain.
2007-01-11 04:17:02 · 11 answers · asked by breastfed43 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Bush is headed in a better direction; slowly but surely he is out the door.
2007-01-11 04:22:10 · answer #1 · answered by dr schmitty 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
As for actaul strategy. Maybe it is a good Idea. Can I myself support this play, NO way. I think with these kind of Ideas, it's only a matter of time til' the draft is re-established. How exactly does he plan to get "more Marines and More army". Bush keeps saying we need more. But hasn't increased recruiting budgets. Yeah, it's amazing that he took blame, and made total commitment. But in the long run, what effect will this have on th U.S.
I had hoped that Last night, he would say this isn't working, our troops are coming home. Well, that ain't happening. We may not always like the decisions made in office, especially in concern to a war that is not ours.
But we elected him. So we should support him.
And just sit back and wait to see what happens to our country, that's the only course we really all have.
2007-01-11 12:28:48 · answer #2 · answered by Julie S 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Withdrawal is always good. Look at the later years in Vietnam! How would you like to be the last body bag out?
Confronting Iran? An elected government the CIA overthrew with terrorist attacks conducted by them and blamed on the President of Iran so we could get the pro-US Oil Shaw of Iran put into power. A government that Reagan was selling arms to!
I think you should leave them alone and quit stealing there resources and stop making enemies!
2007-01-11 12:25:38 · answer #3 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Staying or increasing US troops in Iraq will only create more enemies for US troops which means more US causalities, a continuation of the civil war & more terrorists/radicals to be created.
Leaving could mean an all out regional Mideast Civil war between Sunni and Shiites that would be worse than what's happening now in Iraq.
The US is screwed if the stay in Iraq and they are screwed if they leave Iraq all thanks to the brilliant GW Bush.
2007-01-11 12:26:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
He is headed to the good direction :
The exit door of the white house.
Too bad we have still 2 years to wait...
2007-01-11 12:23:07 · answer #5 · answered by sedfr 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
yes, of course.But the problem is that when Bush heads in a better direction the results are: more innocent people are killed and much more oil is stolen.
2007-01-11 12:25:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. I was very pleased to hear his plan. It made total sense to me. I agree with your comments.
2007-01-11 12:26:31 · answer #7 · answered by JudiBug 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
we'll have to wait and see how it comes out. all I know is we can't abandon Iraq or every GI who has fallen will have done so in vain.
2007-01-11 12:22:35 · answer #8 · answered by kapute2 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
HE IS STILL RUNNING IN CIRCLES AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED
2007-01-11 12:39:34 · answer #9 · answered by Unfrozen Caveman 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't agree with you AT ALL.
2007-01-11 12:30:04 · answer #10 · answered by Princess of Egypt 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋