Opinion
2007-01-13 12:48:04 · 16 answers · asked by James N 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
yes
2007-01-13 12:54:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, and no, because Bush's original goals, disposing of Saddam and creating a western style Democracy are one, accomplished and two impractical.
If the United States wants a different outcome in this War, we have to change our second goal. We can no longer hope to control Iraq or pacify Iraq while creating a workable Democracy. We need a new goal, like getting our troops out of Iraq or at least into relative safety while we avoid a wider war by seeking assistance of all Nations that are concerned.
We need then an aggressive approach to European Leaders, NATO, Russia, England, Turkey, France and any other nation that has interests in the outcome of this War.
We need to admit that we are suffering from the pain of unanticipated consequences.
We need to beseech other Nations and the United Nations to help us device a strategy to heal the political and religious divisions in Iraq and create a solution for pacifying Iraq. We need to be open to others advice on this subject.
We have suffered to much because of the 2003 invasion of Iraq without the help of United Nations and the traditional Allies of the United States.
President Bush could then lead the Nation into a responsible, difficult, but functional peace and future in Iraq and the Middle East.
2007-01-13 13:36:31 · answer #2 · answered by zclifton2 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think, for the position we are in, it is the right decision. I was against invading Iraq in the first place, but since we are there, we might as well try to finish the job that we started, by helping stabilize the country. So far the military has done a lot as far as the stabilizing of the region. The only reason I know that is because I have friends that just came back from 16 month tour in Mosul and Baghdad. I think that sending more troops is what we need to do, since we are there. I don't agree with our troops loosing their lives, but I am even more against having my friends who already gave their lives up having done it in vain.
We need to finish what we started.
2007-01-13 13:25:33 · answer #3 · answered by Ammie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no... but it's necessary because of the blockade that has to be made in iraq. I hate the war... I was considering joining the military awhile back, but after the war got worse I am too afraid to. I just want to know where all of these extra people came from and why they weren't there to begin with.
2007-01-13 13:32:13 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
By invading Iraq, the United States took on the responsibility of getting Iraq to a point where it can sustain, defend, and police itself. If we "cut and run", we have done more damage than Saddam would have by remaining in power.
Yes, we have absolutely done the right thing. We must ensure that Iraq becomes a stable democracy.
2007-01-13 12:59:36 · answer #5 · answered by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think any decisions our country makes it's not going to be without repercussions. I think we are in one of those situations where we are damn if we do (send more) and damn if we do not (bring our troops home). I just hope if we deploy more people there, it result in some management of what's going on over there and the loss of lives decrease.
2007-01-13 13:46:30 · answer #6 · answered by Gee-Gee 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is too little, too late for the wrong war, at the wrong time, with the wrong enemy. It is too few troops to make a significant difference, and too many to be sacrificed for Bush's vanity. He has had four years with a free hand from Congress to do whatever he wanted. He has failed to establish any coherent plan.
Even though we have a volunteer Army the President should not sacrifice young men's and women's lives without a clear strategy. He has none. Bush is now using the puppet government as a scapegoat. But he should look to himself for ignoring U.S. general's advice for more troops, dissolving the Iraqi military and bureaucracy, thus making the country insecure, and falling in to chaos and civil war. "Mission Accomplished" Bush's escalation of a totally flawed wild goose chase for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction finally has to be stopped. Deployment of too few troops for a totally undefined mission would be a serious mistake.
2007-01-13 13:07:54 · answer #7 · answered by Rev. Dr. Glen 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
f*** no, anyone who does is retarded, 'sure lets send more american soldiers to help that 3rd world excuse of a country get a govornment' and besides theres not alot to fight over there, all the ''enemies'' blow themselves up. bleh, kill em all, why does the USA negotiate with these other countries?
2007-01-13 13:57:14 · answer #8 · answered by Kenny 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. We could save lives and money using our bombs and airstrikes. Why not? Roadside bombs and the planes on 9-11 were the same thing. We should just do that in return. For every US building knocked down, blow up a country.
2007-01-13 12:54:28 · answer #9 · answered by 1Edge3 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes we need to finish things up over there and not drag it out any longer than it has to be.
2007-01-13 13:31:03 · answer #10 · answered by Angel 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.....the generals who know best say that's not enough, it's too little too late. Bush knows this but is trying to save face. I just can't believe that he's still fooling some people! Watch this video, please:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SKrKsqjWVg
2007-01-13 13:09:48 · answer #11 · answered by mstrywmn 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋