Do you agree with President Bush's plan to add 21,500 troops to those now in Iraq?

Question

i sure dont we have lost to many soilders.. more soilders going out means more body bags coming back. if bush wants to send more troops why dont he start with himself going to iraq.

Answer 1

Nope. More troops will not change a thing as long as the same old failed tactics are used.

Answer 2

It is a serious question that deserves serious answers.
Iraq is a major player in the Middle East, which if it destabalizes, could cause serious wars and conflict with Europe and Western Asia.
The troops the President has decided to send in may or may not make a serious impact. What they need is the ability to conduct their jobs without the hinderance of the American Congress getting in their way. Human rights did not win World War II, human rights did not stop the Nazi regieme. But besides that fact, what is more terrifying is the possibility of destabalization.
Everyone keeps moaning and groaning of our troops going over and what are we doing there, how can we do what we are doing?
Simply put, if Iraq falls to civil war, or is invaded by it's historical enemy Iran (lest we forget the Iran Iraq War with the five year olds carrying their coffins into battle) Israel would be directly threatened. Iran has already said Israel should be wiped off the face of the map, and Israel has clearly stated that they will use all means necessary to protect their soverignty.
Iraq falling gives Israel the go ahead to gear up their nuclear program as a defense means. Iran may have the capability to conduct dirty bombings, Israel has the means to wipe cities off the map, not hundreds of people, but millions.
So if Israel is attacked or they are provoked to attack, then Iran's historical ally Russia as well as the other Arabic countries would rally against Israel.
In turn causing her allies to rally against those countries.
A vacuum of power in that country alone could very well bring about a nuclear conflict between many of the countries in the world.
We don't hear about this in the news or from our Congres, or from the President because history is not popular, history does not bring in the ratings. The truth is too dam scary to acknowledge so we fill our lives with unrealistic demands, protests, things that make us feel good and comfortable. And we totally ignore what is actually at risk of happening.
What happens if we pull out and even a quarter of the worst possible scenario happens? Will our congress say "Oops sorry, my bad." Nope, we might not even have an active Congress then.
So to answer your question, in my opinion, I hope to God that what he has sent is enough to stabalize the region, for all of our sakes.

Answer 3

No, I do not. I think he is tilting at windmills. We will not be able to effectively cause change in Iraq until Iraq steps up to help herself. It might make a difference if we were able to rachet up the surge numbers to 100,000 instead of 20,000. Bush used this same low amount of troops in surges twice during 2006. It did nothing to change the situation. The fact is that we don't have the military numbers available to send the amount of troops it would take to settle down the violence. Bush said last night that we need to find a way to increase the Army and the Marine forces. But he offered no solution to doing so. Reading between the lines I thought that "draft" was written all over that. He's dying to attack Iran, but can only do from the air because of our low numbers in the military. If he decides to go after Iran and Syria a draft will be the only answer. It's clear that the majority of the American people disapprove of our activity in the region and they certainly aren't rushing to sign up for the mess that has been created by this Administration in the Middle East.

Answer 4

I agree. Probably should be more.
3000 plus in 3 years is a lot of soldiers and as a soldier who has deployed and lost a soldier under my command it is a terrible thing. 7,000 US citizens die every year because pharmacists misread doctors writings for prescriptions. The losses, although tragic, must be kept in perspective.
Although I am not privy to the plan, I assume that the 21,500 will be attained by extending soldiers currently on the ground and/or deploying soldiers already scheduled to deploy earlier than scheduled. So, it is really not 21,000 additional soldiers in the sense but rather a shifting of the rotations to increase the force in a short time frame. I do not know this for sure, but it is just a guess.

Answer 5

No, I don't. We need at least another 75,000 or more troops there to bring that country into line and clear away all the religious creeps who are behind the problem.

We need to slam-bang the whole place and remove all the foreign troops who are hiding among the people. We have got to stop fiddling around, we have to teach the locals to do their jobs, we have to sort out the insurgents- even those who are presently a part of their government,...that's not a job for just 21,000 troops.

Answer 6

I'm not sure. It sounds to me like the extra troops are not going to go in there, join their comrades, and kick Iraq's butt back into shape. We've tried it the nice, easy way, but that's only gotten troops killed. I think they need to go in there and lay down the law until the violence stops and Iraq can get back on the road to recovery. It doesn't sound like that's what these added troops are for. If they're going to do more of the same, I disagree.

Answer 7

If Soldiers dying was a reason not to fight, then we would all be speaking German or Japanese now (we never would have fought WW I or II). Slavery would still be legal in the Southern states (we never would have fought the civil war). Or we'd all be pledging allegience to the queen (we never would have fought the revolution).

Liberals need to get a clue - sometimes security and freedom are worth the ultimate sacrifice. If you are afraid to fight, fine - the rest of us are willing to die to defend you and your rights. But if you don't think there are a lot of people out there who hate us, you're dead (so to speak...) wrong. And don't blame Bush for that hatred - many more attacks on the US occurred during Clinton's presidency than during Bush's.

Answer 8

no... he needs to implement an exit strategy. On a side note, I'm sure he would send more if he could but the troops are currently stretched to the limit. Unless a new draft is enforced, we can barely cover the 20000 troops. It's scary, but we would be in a lot of trouble if any other country tried to attack us while we are in Iraq.

Answer 9

HELL NO!!! they need to withdraw the soldiers.Enough innocent soldiers has lost their lives already.We do not need to lose more.I feel so sorry for the families of those soldiers who are left behind and has to deal with all the grief.Not to mention all the soldiers who died at age 20 did not even had a chance to live their lives,very very sad.Bring the troops home and let the f......irakis deal with their own problems.No matter how many more troops we send they are not going to stop killing each other so what is the point on losing more soldiers!!

Answer 10

No. To have any meaningful impact we would need to double the number of troops on the ground and commit to a long haul of at least 20 years. Lacking that, just bring the troops home.

Answer 11

21,500 troops is not enough we need to send more and send a clear message to all those that are watching that America will not back down in the face of adversity.

We should have had 1 million troops in there to start with and all this would never have happened.

Will people start to understand that ARMED FORCES are armed and they are meant to play more than just a deterrent role.