should we send 20,000 troops into Iraq?

Question

I need to write a long paragraph to argue whether we should or should not send 20,000 more troops into Iraq.... does anyone have any input or ideas of what i can write? or you can just write me the whole paragraph :) haha thanks for any help!

Answer 1

The similarities between this war and the war in Vietnam are tremendous. We are fighting a war that is impossible to win. And the American people know this, and that is why Bush's approval ratings are LOWER than Nixon's were when he resigned. The best history book I have ever read is "The People's History of the United States," and understanding the past will help you understand the present. Hope this helps with your paper.
Maybe try an internet search for Howard Zinn.

Answer 2

This is the moral question of the month.... Do we send more troops in and hopefully slow the killing of civilians in this country? Do we pull our troops out and hope Iraqis will solve their own situtation? I support sending more troops in temporarily. Even with this increase of 20,000 more troops, the total number of troops in Iraq will still not be as high as it has been in the past. Really, everyone has been calling this a "troop surge" or a "troop escalation" instead of calling it something like a "troop re-enforcement". If the dems want to win the presidency in '08 then they need to come up with their own ideas for Iraq and get it out to the public. At least Bush has ideas. Instead, they're playing the campaign of "We're not going to tell you our ideas so the other side wont steal it." This nation is becoming very polarized in terms of red-states/blue-states, liberal/conservative, ect. We should all rally behind the troops, whether you disagree with the cause or not, and get the job done to get our troops home.

Answer 3

One thing to point out, that with the additional 20,000 we are still less than the original force in the 03 invasion. Instead of bringing it into a military strategical discussion the media and the left (Which were recently calling for more troops) have politicized the decision into an election year posturing point. Will it work, well that will be decided. On D-Day in 1944, there were those who thought the plan was doomed to fail.

Answer 4

I'd prefer that we send at least twice that amount. You'd know what I mean, if you were ever there yourself. Bigger and more is much better, and ultimaetly safer. For instance, when we take a block or provide security for a small town, we need to continue to hold the area, instead of forward deploying to another area to wrestle it under control. What happens is when we leave, the insurgents move right in. Its very frustrating. So the more troops, the better the ability to control the situation at large, even if it means deploying an additional 100k in troops. We may as well set up a permanent presence there like Senator Kennedy has suggested (wow, can't believe I just said that). As bad as things are, they will only get worse by leaving or not getting the job done that we started. Much worse..

Answer 5

This Iraq war should never have happened. 20,000 more troops or 200,000 more troops won't change that. Reasoned world leaders left Saddam in power in Iraq for years because it unfortunately was the lesser of two evils to do so. But the issues were too complex for George W. Bush to understand. He only knew that he hated and feared Saddam, he had to see for himself what would happen, and he is not about to admit he is an idiot.

"I think Saddam and the United States very often have a commonality which bonds them together and that is simply this: That without Saddam Hussein, Iraq would disintegrate into several countries and make more trouble for the rest of the Middle East....When the rebellion started against Saddam in 1991, that danger loomed. The United States helped Saddam crush that rebellion...The American administration was afraid that Iraq will disintegrate. They had no plan for what might follow Saddam Hussein. And certainly President Bush was explicit on that subject, saying he did not want to be mired in Iraqi internal affairs--until he was forced into getting into Iraq by television and the pictures of the poor Kurds. And so that rebellion failed...In the case of the United States, there are huge problems that we want to solve before we think seriously of moving him..."
The Survival of Saddam: Secrets of his life and leadership
an interview with Said K. Aburish
published jan. 2000
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aburish.html

Answer 6

I've yet to hear a 'mission 'for these additional troops. More of the same? Peace making between sectarian violence? What are the points of progress? When will the mission end?

The question should be... what is the current status of things in the Badghad area, what are neighboring nations doing to control the escalation of violence and stability of the Iraq government, can the Iraq government "govern", how many extra 'local' troops will be added in conjunction with our forces?

At what point does the situation in Iraq tilt from a military solution to a diplomatic one? Is the adminstration holding peace talks with the competing sides?

The bottom line is that EVERY life is precious (whether in uniform or not) Put yourself in THEIR place. Would _you_ want to go - given your research?

good luck

Answer 7

Hell no!!!! We should not be sendin 20,000 troops to Iraq just because they can't keep order in their stupid country its not our problem! Our soldiers are getting killed everyday just because some dummy wanted to kill theirself and had to take our troops along with them! Bush should be impeached he doesn;t give a damn about thoes people all he wants is the oil that they have that could make him rich! "Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price," said the petition signed by 1,034 soldiers. Kucinich, who arrived at the end of their Capitol Hill news conference because his flight from Cleveland was delayed, said he would enter it into the Congressional Record. This is what our troops are saying.

Answer 8

for my area i don't think of he's sending sufficient troops. Your opposition approximately slaughter shows which you're disconnected from actuality. 3000 infantrymen in 3 years constitutes between the main useful invasions from a casualty viewpoint ever. If Bush is there to thieve the oil the place is it? No information that even one drop stolen different than on your fantasy ideas. you're added relatively clueless on Somalia. we've not attacked Somalia, we've bombed terrorist camps in help the government's very own combat against terrorism. you be attentive to i don't call many human beings terrorist sympathizers, yet you certainly in good shape the bill based on the reality which you will not or won't comprehend appropriate action against those animals. the only blind individual I see right here is you. Uzlu2919: not all and sundry disagrees with Bush. Kindly state your guy or woman evaluations, yet end attempting to communicate for something us. charlzy: comparable answer as above. i'm American and that i do help the action. communicate for your self and not for me or every person else. Dex: Semper Fi and thank you on your service to this large land of ours.

Answer 9

They are needed for the troops that are there. They have been taking areas, clearing them and then moving on. Now with additional men they can secure areas and run the insurgents out. If most people thought about it, the troops sure appreciate the extra help. Should have sent 150,000 more, disarmed the people, anyone left with a weapon is an insurgent, and therefore forfits his or her life!

Answer 10

Why didn't we send 20,000 troops into New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina hit? Bush and his cronies may give the impression that they need to send these troops into Iraq for the safety of all U.S. citizens, but they didn't care when thousands of U.S. citizens died on American soil due to the government's negligence. How can you trust this man who blatantly shows that he does not value your life. He does not care about Americans or America. He is using you, the American people for his own personal gains. Oil, money and power...that is what it's all about.