Do you agree that Bush should send over 20,000 more troops to Iraq???

Answer 1

Yes. Even more than I did the last 20 times I answered this question.

Answer 2

O-kay here is the straight poop on the issue, "JUNIOR" is not sending over more troops... what it is a shell game. This is how it is going to happen... The guys in Iraq now are to rotate out will stay longer, the guys that are to rotate in, are getting moved ahead of schedule. So there is your extra 20,000 troops. And not all are combat, I would venture a guess less than 30%, today's military takes about 4 to 5 guys to support one ground pounder.

I think there should be no less than 100,000 plus "COMBAT" troops on the ground in Iraq for the next year to put down all the problems we are having there. While getting as much oil out of there as possible to off set the costs. Or just do a mass pull out as fast as we can. then supply everyone weapons and see who comes out on top. and make them our best friends. That is what the U.S.A. did to create Saddam in the first place.

Answer 3

No. Because if he wants to win in Iraq he needs about 300,000 more troops and the only way he can get those is if he starts a draft next month. Sending in 20,000 more troops into Iraq is like putting a band aid on gun shot wound.

Answer 4

Absolutely not, this escalation will solve nothing. For one, we will be increasing our Military presence in Iraq to around 153,000 troops, we had up to 160,000 troops in Iraq at one time and the violence continued to get worse. This is more of a look tough approach that doesn't really do anything, it is simply cosmetic. Second, it will help to increase anti-American sentiment in Iraq making it even harder to fight the radical militias and insurgent groups. Third, President Bush attached on to this plan a threat to Iran and Syria which could entice them into further action against the United States.

And I just read that President Bush authorized raids on Iranians which the Iraq Government is protesting because they claim that the Iranians were operating as a liaison between Iran and Iraq under the permission of the Iraqi Government. President Bush seems to be trying to goad Iran into publicly attacking the United States so that he will have support for invading Iran.

Answer 5

I think we should send more, get this thing done with, and then come home. The increase in troop levels is needed to secure an area once it has been rid of insurgents. This is a new concept in the war, for some reason no one thought of it until now. Once security comes to Baghdad, coupled with reconstruction, the political process in Iraq will be able to move towards a solution to end sectarian violence. The key is getting the Iraqis to move against Shi'ite militias like they have against Sunni militias. Leaving Iraq now is not a viable option.

Answer 6

I think that it is not enough. We should go in and wipe out neighborhoods The cost to come back and rebuild after wards will be less, and we will lose less lives than we are by allowing them to constantly take cheap pot shots at us and taking us down one or two at a time. We need to show the terrorist, and the neighboring countries providing arms and man power to them that we mean business, and if they don't stop, we will wipe them out. Every single one of them. If we are having a problem like Falujah, surround the city, give them 2 days to hand over the offenders or we will level the city. These types of tactics will only have to be used once or maybe twice, and then the common people will gladly inform us where to find the leaders. They will want to save their homes and belongings. This will bring an abrupt end to the majority of our problems.

James

Answer 7

I agree that there needs to be more troops but I think the problem with how the war has been handled is a lack of vision as to how to make a functioning government.

Answer 8

Absolutely not! Over 3,000 brave men and women have already sacrificed their lives for Prez-ee-dent Nuke-ya-ler's private war on Saddam. Anyone with even a modicum of intelligence knows that the only reason we went into "Eye-rack" was because Saddam threatened Little Georgie's father, when Poppy Bush was going to visit Kuwait some years back. The neo-cons knew there were no weapons of mass destruction (more like weapons of mass deception!). They knew there was no attempt by Saddam to purchase "yellowcake" uranium from Niger; that had already been disproven by British military intelligence as false rumors. They knew there was no connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam and the Baathists. The Baathists are Sunnis and Al-Qaeda Shia, and they have no love for each other; look at the sectarian violence now occuring in "Eye-rack" for proof. The one thing Saddam did fear was Islamic fundmentalism , so he'd never let Al-Qaeda establish any kind of presence in "Eye-rack" because of this. One of the things Prez-ee-dent Nuke-ya-ler campaigned on when running the first time was "We shouldn't be in the bidness of nation-buildin,'" as he put it. And you know what? He was right, then! We need to force the "Eye-rackis" to starting building their own country as they see fit to do it, and providing their own security, instead of depending on us to do it. We need to start scaling back, to an eventual withdrawal into Kuwait, for the time being. Remember, Osama-been-forgotten and the others directly responsible for 9/11 are still on the loose. That's where the real "war on terror" should be fought. The Taliban are now regaining strength in Afghanistan. We need to finish the job there first!

Answer 9

I think you can boil this question down to this: Do you think the securing of oil for the energy supplies of the U.S and Europe is justification for the invasion, occupation and destruction of the lands of our fellow human beings who, perhaps having different and arguably questionable religious beliefs and a less fortunate materialistic lifestyle then us, still are at the most basic level no different from us?

It seems to me it really is down to that, we enjoy our lifestyles - hell im here drinking my coca cola and surfing the net on my nice apple laptop waiting to go into my comfy double bed to wake up and drive to work in my nice SUV fuelled by petroleum - but is this luxury really justified when other fellow human beings are living through hell so I can keep benefiting in this way in the years that come?

Its a hard one...one side of me does not want to give up what i've got, but the other can't bear that other people are paying the price for my relative luxury. It seems our leaders have made their decision, if we really can't live with it we need to stand up and stop these things that our going on and prepare to one day lose what we have. If we can live with it then we need to accept we our paying for this in the blood of others, those who are less fortunate.

So in short, I would say I disagree with Bush's decision, however, I am and probably will be benefiting from it and for me, personally and selfishly that is a benefit...

Answer 10

Bush will just send troops into Baghdad and just before he is out of office pull them out and claim victory but the violence will return but will get covered up in the media by the elections.

Answer 11

I think that the US should send 21,500 soldiers to Iraq in the short term. but he shouldn't send much or the US ARMy may be stretched too thin and won't be able to handle threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea(AXIS OF EVil)