Whats your opion on Bush sending more troops over to Iraq?

Answer 1

Bush is a moron!!!

Answer 2

If it is what is needed to get the job done, then fine. But, if it is just putting more soldiers' lives on the line for nothing, then no it isn't a good thing. I don't have enough facts to base an opinion on. You cannot trust the image of Iraq that the news stations puts out. But if it really is as bad as they say it is, there certainly aren't enough troops there.

I am tired of hearing everyone say that Bush is a moron. Usually, these are the people that pay no attention to the state of things in the world.

My brother is currently serving in Afghanistan so I have more at stake in what Bush decides to be right. He could be sent to Iraq within the next year, if the troop surge continues.

Answer 3

I shall dare to answer a question that overflies anybody's brains all over the biosphere who think with limited freedom about that matter. From a strategical viewpoint it's not worth the wager because the so called enemy is subtle and phantasmagoric in the way of knowing where are the allies and where the adversary, if there is anyone. They call it killing flies with missiles, also.
Politically, beware, because you can't name the unnamed, nor speak about taboo. Hereby, and trying not to fall in offense, it awakes in near memory 1.400 US troops which tried to invade Cuba in the Bay of Pigs 'affair', and the conviction that it was not late John F Kennedy who decided by himself this nonsense. Also, in 1950-54, something called "Western Enterprises, Inc." at Formosa. And afterwards, the "Coup
d' État" that put the Iranian crude managing off the control of the government of Mossadeq and the Shah sat on the throne so that the Tudeh partisans were executed. And then England lost his monopoly on black gold after a boycott to the thrown out Mossadeq's raw petrol and the refineries down there. But__ in august 1958 Occidental leader countries put a deal on that geostrategic zone of the World, and British Anglo-Iranian received a percent of 40% of the oil and Royal Dutch Shell a 14% and, here we go, North America another 40% divided in stock-shareholders as Gulf Oil, Standard Oil (New Jersey& California), Texas Company (Texaco) and Socony-Mobil. France had also part of the pittance: Compagnie Française des Pétroles: 5-6%. The USA provided with 1.300 million ancient dollars the Kingdom of the Shah between 1951 and 1963, but that went on richest hands, and poorer remained poorer than ever. The sister of the Shah, Ashref, had a very intimate friend who was called "Caviar Queen": Ehsan Davaloo. She earned, without moving a finger, 450.000 (ancient) dollars/year.
We can speak also about El Cairo and Nasser, when this Egyptian Prime Minister tried to buy arms from CCCP, Soviet Union. And about some Aircraft sold to Israel by USA. And how Nasser changed his mind about his importation politics and Assuan. Anywhere in the States you can see real or phoney, doesn't matter, ex-veterans of Vietnam, mutilated, physically and mentally injured, getting older and older and without understanding what happened then. Something more. When the provoked mutiny of Teheran, they sent there a general who in 1932 was chief of the New Jersey Police, then in the 1940 had reorganized the cops of Shah Rezha Palhevi. His name... Schwarzkopf. Just a family tradition, Middle Orient. They called them the "Rough Riders" and let's put a fullstop. I don't think, it's my opinion, that Bush is sending anything or anybody by himself. There is a political factor called 'lobbies'.
To be, alas, continued.

Answer 4

I'm for it, iraq has trouble mainly in Baghdad and areas like that and those few areas are where we need massive amounts of troops but concentrating all of our troops there would leave the rest of the country bare, and open to attacks. So we increase the number of troops take the strongholds and there the job is done and we leave. Think about it this way if the country and the troops were seriously against it we would rebel.

Answer 5

... i think he has murderous plans for alot of syrians and iranians ... and i think he is leading our nation down a dangerous path that we may regret ... its not the extra troops im against , hey, the situation in iraq is bad whatever the reasons are we are there .. the fact is we are, and we should do what it takes to bring things under control, but i think the extra troops are in support of widening the conflict not bringing order to iraq ... thats the problem i have with it ... just making a scenario where theres more death and more destruction to more people in more places ...

Answer 6

If it takes 20k send them. If they need more, send them. If you believe that Al Quida is not watching what goes on in Iraq you are a damned fool. They are watching and waiting for the country to lose it's will in Iraq. Then they will attack us HERE in the U.S. And the Liberal Chicken Sh!ts here will lay down and let them take over.

Answer 7

so that you do not favor more suitable troops to help help your relatives and pal? you would favor the Democrats cut back funding even as they are in a conflict zone? fortunately we are no longer appropriate or pals! some circumstances I wander has all and sundry fairly concept about the consequences of pulling out earlier Iraq can guard their own safe practices. What it would advise even as the finished ME erupts into conflict, and what this can advise to the global monetary equipment. Iran contolling 1/2 the oil in the international would have unfavorable repercussions, noticeably in the experience that they use their salary to proceed funding terrorists!

Answer 8

I totally think that this is retarded because I live in Canada and we are sending our troops to help stupid George W. Bush with his soon to come victories over Iraq and Afganastan. This this is a mistake. Sure US lost over a 1,000 people that are serving their country. The violence is stupid and needs to stop ASAP. I can't stand to watch another person die from inexusable things like declaring war on Iraq and Afganastan. Pretty soon the neclear bombs from Korea is coming to bomb North America and needs to STOP immediatly.

Answer 9

Huge mistake, as is usally the case with Bush.

Answer 10

We should have never been there, we should have left them alone and take care of our own here first, before we try to fix the world. Our governmnet needs to take the plank out of it's own eye, before we try to take the sliver out of others.

Answer 11

He has the backbone to make tough decisions that will secure Iraq and make it free and stable. The more we go after the insurgents, the better.