Just curious. What do you think of Bush sending more troops to Iraq?

Question

I absolutely support the troops. They go where they have to because it's the job they signed up for and I have nothing but respect for their bravery. However, there are quite a few troops who infuriated by this war and know that there is a good chance they will come home in a box or so emotionally messed up that they'll never be able to live a normal life. I have a friend who has tried to commit suicide because he can't get over what he saw there. Anyone who thinks that these troops are going over like dumb, happy sheep to the slaughter house is jaded and needs to wake up. Stop blindly following your president. Even the conservative right is against this newest "solution." Are there really bad guys over there? What? Saddam? How many other horrible dictators can you name for me? Have we tried to overthrow them because of their unfair ways? There are young people with entire lives ahead of them going over there to die. They deserve respect but the fighting is futile

Joe, do you remember the lessons learned in Vietnam? A political war is not a war. It is a power struggle and people are being put in harms way so that we can be powerful and Bush can be a hero. It's pointless and it should have never begun.

Answer 1

Yeah, another one of Bush's stupid ideas.. I think they should try sending his family and friends to Iraq and see how he likes it. But, of course, us ordinary people can't do anything these days so scratch that thought.

Answer 2

At least it is a plan that holds out some kind of hope for a positive outcome in that war torn nation. If we can disarm the militias we may actually have a chance to start drawing down troops much sooner than if we just muddle around til 2008. I have heard no kind of plan from the dems that offers anything other than tucking tail and hauling it home in shame and defeat while Iran gains control of 25% of the world oil supply and threatens a good part of the rest.

Answer 3

some info could be wiped sparkling up right here: "Saddam replaced into reason on taking on the whole mideast, and mutually as the Saudis are some cans wanting a six %., they don't seem to be as undesirable as he replaced into, so in a feeling it replaced into approximately funds, as he might have taken over the whole area and held the international hostage with an oil embargo in replace for nuclear cloth." Saddam had no purpose of taking on the whole center east. His central concern replaced into with Iran and retaining a border with a us of a that replaced into turning out to be greater of a militia potential residing house. The Saudis are quite a few cans wanting a six %. and are by using far worse than Saddam and the Iraqis ever the place. Al Qeada, Al Jihad, and quite a few different international terrorist communities stay in Saudi Arabia with impunity. The Saudis funnel funds to terrorist companies for all time. The bounce to nuclear weapons is completely a farce. the reason of the invasion of Iraq is complicated and is surely no longer completely spoke back any time quickly. there is relatively some grievance for the conflict and there are too lots of those with too little information talking too lots. interior the top, there the place some extensive blunders made, the Iraqi human beings are able to looking after themselves. the main important situation now's that they won't like the US (do what they are advised) and could no longer carry a democracy.

Answer 4

Well he made a great decision to ignore the document dropped on his desk that said "Bin Laden determined to attack America with airplanes"! I guess because they did not give him the flight numbers and times. Oh and I loved the way he handled Katrina. And the war in Iraq has gone great under his control so far! Did we not already have the "Mission Accomplished" party approx. 1360 days ago? Yeah I think his rope ran out of slack a long time ago! To trust his leadership or judgment on this situation is as bad as an abused women going back to the guy! I unfortunately voted for him in 2000 and will regret it the rest of my life! I have lost two friends in Iraq already and I don't want to see anyone else die for oil. I can't believe the lies anymore! I spent six years in the Marines and I have no problem with the government using the military to protect this country. This is a special interest war and the soldiers coming back will tell you that if you know any!

Answer 5

I'm 100% against it! Thousands of American lives have already been lost - last I heard it was over 3,000. Now think about it - that's THREE THOUSAND sons / fathers / mothers / daughters / etc... that have been killed over there. Thousands of poor kids who have to live without a parent, and/or thousands of parents who now have to deal with the fact that they outlived their child.

Bush is always so damn nonchalant and indifferent about sending more troops - would he be in such a rush to send one of his daughters?!? Let's see how badly he'd want to continue sending troops if one of his own daughters got brutally killed over there...

And that's just the moral part of it - it's a bad idea from every other angle as well. MANY politicians are conceding that it will not only have no positive effect on Iraq's development, but it will, in fact, make things worse and be detrimental to their development with all this dependence on us to simply get through daily life.

I know it doesn't seem fair to the Iraqi people, but we need to just pull ALL of our troops out now, before more and more Amreican lives are taken. So, then this whole war, and all the lives lost have been for naught? Well, ever hear of cutting your losses?!? Time to get out - they'll stabilize on their own, eventually.

Answer 6

I guess I would be in the minority of answers here on Yahoo's poll of politically correct opinion, barking out foul remarks about our President. Yes, people, he is our VOTED President and represents all of us. I see these nasty remarks about how people want to see our President killed or shot - who are these arrogant people to speak so mighty? It is for these people that I am answering this question with my opinion.

I believe that if the US has a mission to ensure the reformation of a country such as Iraq, then as much force and effort must be dedicated to this cause as necessary. A half hearted military effort cannot succeed and will only lead to disaster and a significantly higher kill rate. People forget that the US has a military for which is used in MILITARY actions. As a superpower nation, we do not have a military for defensive actions only. Like it or not, the position of the US is as one of the world's police.

Do I want people to die? No. Do I believe that Iraq is a worthy cause for Americans to fight? Somewhat. BUT, if we are to be there, we have to put in enough to be victorious. Does anyone here remember the lessons taught in Vietnam? Other than those which make opposers sanitize their statements by saying "[insert hate remark here], but I support the troops".

Answer 7

Pointless. Bush has turned me, a former republican activist, campaign worker, and financial contributer, into a conservative independent swing voter.

One of the generals made an excellent point: He said that sending more troops only furthers Iraq's dependence on us and sets them back in their ability to take control of their own country. I didn't hear it first-hand, but by a quote of a quote supposedly from Obama... He apparently said that in Iraq, our troops are our commodity. If benchmarks are met, we reward Iraq by keeping our troops in their country to support them. If they fail, we punish them by removing some of our troops and they lose some of our support. This makes sense to me! It's classical conditioning using a system of rewards and punishments to elicit the desired outcome. It will either work or it won't. Results are not guaranteed, but it makes so much sense in helping us determine how far we *should* go. If they don't care, why should we? A recent report claimed that there was to be a raid into a neighborhood to round up members of the death squads. Problem is, 70% of the police force and military are infiltrated by the death squads and those sympathetic to them. The Iraqi response was that of 6 battalions who were scheduled to sweep the neighborhoods, only 2 showed up. Using Obama's logic, our response should be to bring 4 battalions home permanently.

Answer 8

I think Bush will send them, more American blood will be wasted on a society which is inherently incompatible with democracy, and NOBODY in Congress will have to courage to cut funding. Eventually President Clinton will conduct secret negotiations with insugent leaders and agree to a withdrawal schedule that minimizes US losses but ousts the current Iraqi government and turns it back over to the next Saddam Hussein.

Answer 9

I didn't look at the other answers but I bet they're overwhelimgly saying it's a bad idea and Bush sucks, right? All I can say is could you have imagined if Clinton had been president on 9/11?That's a scary thought. Think about that next time you cut down Bush. But in my opinion, I think we should take all the troops out that we have there now! Have we really accomplished much?

Answer 10

i don't think he should send more troops to Iraq. one of the many major reasons why Iraqis' are made at the Americans is because our presence make them feel as if we are occupying their land. more troop would just anger them even further. i think we should send in more social workers like teachers or doctors or constructors. help rebuild Iraq and give them a better future with better infrastructure. we are already building schools and such, but i think we are not building them fast enough. and dont bring back all of the soldiers back. just some.
concerning the soldiers. i believe it is brave of them to go there. but that is the problem, if i am not mistaken they want to go there, volunteers. and so if they get traumatized, you can not blame anyone but themselves.

Answer 11

I don't like it and see no reason to send more into harms way. I wouldn't want to go, nor could I recommend it to anyone.

In the beginning, the war should have been handled differently sealing off areas and bombing them instead of using troops like police. To make matters worse, some have been prosecuting for doing their jobs properly.

And I'm a conservative, not a liberal.