Condi Rice said yesterday when questioned it is NOT - just an "augmentation". Is that like saying hunger does not exist and some people have a "food insuffiency"?
2007-01-12 02:06:39 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Try another example: IF something brown and soft came out your butt - is that an augmentation?
2007-01-12 02:27:58 · update #1
Of course it is.
20,000 more troops means more fresh meat (no pun intended).
2007-01-12 02:33:57 · answer #1 · answered by jswnwv 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It is not an escalation. That would imply an increase or an elevation of the current level of operations. Our entire strategy in Iraq has just been altered and the 20,000 troops were required to implement it. As I understand it, they will be used to hold areas that have been cleared of insurgents to prevent them from returning as soon as the combat troops leave. They will move from one area to the next leaving troops at each location until all of Baghdad is cleared of insurgents. That is the plan, at least. It will only work if the Iraqi Army and the Iraqis themselves participate. Even with the additional 20k troops, we don't have enough to pacify the entire country without the help of the Iraqi Army.
2007-01-12 12:30:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
There were more troops than that already in Iraq earlier, so it really isn't an escalation.
Also, many top democrats were calling for increased troop levels just literally weeks ago, and now they've reversed their stand.
Apparently whichever way the wind blows popular opinion is the way they'll sway. It is very disappointing that democrats can't see something through, because almost all of them- daschle, durbin, kerry, clinton, supported the initial invasion of Iraq and now , in the face of leaving it to chaos, they want to pick up and leave. Pelosi and Co. are a bunch of idiots. And Durbin's response to Bush was horrific- basically he said we've deposed, caught and killed saddam, established that there were no weapons of mass destruction and set up a democratic government- SO NOW, WE MUST LEAVE, and hope they don't descend into utter chaos. what kind of a plan is that? An idiotic one. And, these people have the gall to ridicule Bush. At least he has an idea what is at stake- the democrats apparently only can see as far as the end of their own noses
2007-01-12 10:19:30 · answer #3 · answered by Lane 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Sounds like she needs an "augmentation" to her brain; then maybe she'll quit talking all the doubletalk and lies that have poured out of her filthy mouth all of her spoiled brat life.
We need to write our Representatives and our Senators and demand that they stop this foolishness and bring our troops home NOW!
2007-01-12 12:39:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
In most cases it would be, but since the Iraq invasion was under-manned from the start it can not be considered so now.
Since the most reasoned estimated put the needed manpower at 300,000, this increase is not likely to prove effective. It's only purpose is to allow our President to pretend he is "Doing Something".
2007-01-12 10:17:19 · answer #5 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you look at it without listening to the Liberal Media and the Democrats, it is really just a bump...troop strengths are not what they were a few years ago...it is going to about where it was during the first years of the war...I think it is going from like 130k to 150k...150k or so was where we were at for the invasion...so it is just a bump to get more boots on the ground to hunt down the bad guys...
2007-01-12 10:15:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Call it anything you like.
It's a damned good idea.
Now , we can search and destroy the insurgents and quiet things down.
Soon as the Iraqi's are strong enuogh we can start pulling back, instead of cutting and running or trying to buy off the bad guys.
2007-01-12 10:22:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
yes
2007-01-12 13:42:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋