What do you think about more troops being sent to Iraq?

Question

I think Bush is an idiot and our country is wrong to send more troops to Iraq, what about you?

Answer 1

I think if he wanted to risk more American lives he should have sent at least 50,000 troops (if a draft is needed, then so be it). 20,000 is a bandaid on an amputation. He wouldn't listen to the Generals who said adding troops would be bad. Instead he adds troops, but not nearly enough to quell the violence that will be sparked simply because we sent more troops over there. It's amazing this guy has the brain capacity to even brush his teeth. If you are going to escalate then try escalating so we might have enough force to stop them. Don't just give them more targets.

I say if this does nothing or simply increases violence (as pretty much every General and Analyst has said it will) then we pack up and leave. Iraqis obviously aren't going to step up if we plan on babysitting them indefinitely.

Answer 2

It was already voiced by people high up in the administration, that Bush's plan was essentially a political solution, not a true military plan. He needed to do something, and based on all his earlier statements, he couldn't "cut and run". So- he wasn't left with too many options. He'll send more troops (also known as "targets" to the enemy), then when it doesn't work, he can at least say he 'tried'.

And then blame it on the american public who didn't have the will to see it through.

Oh- and just for the fun of it, the coalition went in with 660,000 troops for Operation Desert Storm in 1991 (500K were american), and that was without an occupation- as Dick Cheney advised Bush41 that we'd get ourselves into a quagmire.

Answer 3

i understand President Obama replaced into unfavorable to the war in Iraq, yet ultimately supported the war in Afghanistan. particular, Obama did say that he will began a phased withdraw of troops from Iraq, with most of the troops being out interior of a year. in view that 9-11, our purpose has been to seize or kill Osama Bin weighted down and injury The Al Qeada terrorist team and their allies. i assumed then and that i've got faith now that Afghanistan replaced into the only place wherein troops ought to have ever been sent to accomplish this purpose.

Answer 4

I think "troop" is a word we use so that we don't have to think about the fact that these are actual people. If Bush said, "I'm going to send 20,000 more of your family and friends to kill and possibly die in Iraq" then at least we'd be talking in truths. But truth and transparency aren't what he does, are they?

Answer 5

as recently as december joe biden said we need more troops. last July kerry, clinton, shumer, and pelosi said we need more troops. The military said we dont and bush said he will listen to his military and they all bombarded him for not putting more in. less than a year later.........we have this

so as Bush said.. if anyone has a better idea he will listen.. both sides say we must win in iraq so what is your answer?

Answer 6

What Bush and the barking right-wing moonbats don't recall is that we have "surged" troop levels in Iraq before, to no effect.

This is just Bush's little way of pitching a hissy fit, at the expense of our military men and women, over being kicked to the curb in November. Remember how his daddy's last official act was to send US troops to Somalia out of spite at being defeated in 1992.

Answer 7

The real question(s) is why did we go to Iraq to begin with?
Why isn't this congress holding Bush accountable?
How can we as a Nation let this Man rob this Nation of over 3000 of our solders lives,655,000 Iraqis and over 400 BILLION dollars, all for a war based on outright LIES.

Answer 8

I think its a good idea, if we need more power over ther then we need more troops, they are getting paid to do a Job, let them do it.

Answer 9

I think you are too full of hate to see anything. Personally, I believe more ground troops is not the answer. Air power should be increased.

Answer 10

More troops should have been sent a long time ago.