“While we all want to see a stable and peaceful Iraq, many current and former senior military leaders have made clear that sending more American combat troops does not advance that goal."
2007-01-13 15:50:56 · 31 answers · asked by Chicken Jones 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
the truth,she doesnt care one iota,about the war,in order to have a peaceful Iraq we need to give them an opportunity to persevere,with its current new plan,otherwise the whole area will destabilize,raising oil prices,ransom for peace on the world against terrorism here and abroad,she and many of her ilk,dont get it,unfortunatly a lot of Americans dont either.If we walk away like they did in Vietnam,the repurcussions that sound out from losing will have a much broader effect in the world than just losing a penninsula shangri-la in asia,and will effect the entire economy globally,possibly knocking a blow to capitalistic countries and possibly expanding socialism and communism,and terrorists regimes into a stronger and more war capable power
2007-01-13 16:00:06 · answer #1 · answered by stygianwolfe 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
First, she doesn't say anything about the current and former senior military leader that have made it clear that sending more troops DOES advance that goal. She is being very bias and not looking at the issue as a whole.
She didn't say a word about the new stragedy.
Nor did she mention that not very long ago she and many others were screaming for more troops to be sent into Iraq.
And of course she never stated what PLAN she has to make a stable and peaceful Iraq.
2007-01-14 00:00:25 · answer #2 · answered by time_wounds_all_heelz 5 · 7⤊ 2⤋
How long ago was it that the Democrats were bleating about needing more troops? And now they're getting what they want - and they are STILL complaining. They wanted Rumsfeld gone - Bush complied - still complaining.
Sorry - off-topic there. I don't think I could possibly say it any better than the woman who has actually BEEN there did. Thank you and your husband for your service. Damn glad you made it home safely and God bless.
2007-01-14 00:23:53 · answer #3 · answered by Jadis 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I believe that for many Military Leaders the real issue is not so much the number of boots on the ground but the half assed way we've engaged the enemy so far in an irrational concern for "Political Correctness."
The War on Terror has become a Police Action where our Soldiers have been reduced to "Door to Door Salesmen of Democracy" instead of the brave liberators they were trained to be.
The Presidents new "Strategery" leans more in the right direction in my opinion, but I'd still like to see us just go Medieval on them.
2007-01-14 00:01:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Well first thing how does she propose that we stop the sectarian killing diplomacy? "yes send her there to talk to them let's see how long she lives"?... It's not even a side goal for her so what and why is she even referring to it? The people made it clear that they wanted a change not her or the military we are the ones who wanted a new direction not her... she assumes to much!
2007-01-14 00:50:35 · answer #5 · answered by no one here gets out alive 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
She is not wrong with the statement! What was omitted was that 6 months ago the democrats wants to send more troops!!! What's change in the last 6 months the election!
The biggest political trick is to omit!!
2007-01-14 00:28:56 · answer #6 · answered by wondermom 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I'm with vice presidick Cheney, we are in the final throes of the insurgency. Oh and Condi Rice who says this is not an increase in troops, it is an augmentation. Bush farts and these two paint it blue. The war is won.
2007-01-14 01:19:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
because the Generals said that an increase in forces "alone" would be of no avail.... however an increase in forces along with the other two prongs on the new plan.. a political plus up from Iraq and a economical plus up from Iraq coupled with a Us military plus up WOULD be beneficial for a short term....
2007-01-13 23:57:02 · answer #8 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Her and her constituents could care less about seeing "a stable and peaceful Iraq." Her only goal is to do whatever she feels is popular, regardless of its impact on the world.
2007-01-14 00:02:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
I love it when people say "MANY HAVE SAID IT" but they don't have the facts. Who are the MANY? Do we have names? Ranks? Anything to back up these claims?
In fact, my husband has been to Iraq, and fought for our country. The current leaders that are on the ground there - which he worked with - are the ones calling for more troops. Personnel are needed to help accomplish the mission.
Whether you agree why we are there or not... realize we are.... and we need to do what needs to be done to completely restructure the system and get out of the country as quickly as possible - with the greatest amount of stability!!!!
2007-01-14 00:00:10 · answer #10 · answered by Glory 5 · 5⤊ 4⤋