Is our president making a mistake when it comes to sending people to Iraq?

Answer 1

NO! here i had to write a repor on it for school.. theis is part of it.....the words of President George W. Bush, “We will help the Iraqis execute their aggressive plan to secure their capital. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of Baghdad. The new plan to secure Baghdad fixes the problems that prevented previous operations from succeeding. This time, there will be adequate Iraqi and U.S. forces to hold the areas that have been cleared, including more Iraqi forces and five additional brigades of American troops committed to Baghdad.” This means that with the help of our forces, crime will be significantly diminished in Iraq and Baghdad specifically.

You may wonder to yourself, “What does some city, half a world away, have to do with me?’ The answer is quite simple, religion and politics. The Iraqi people, along with the help of Americans, are attempting to create a government of their own. As long as the American people hold the Iraqis government to their word, $10 billion of their own money will be spent on reconstruction projects that will create new jobs. It is very likely that the government will hold to their word due to the possible lack of support from the Iraqi and American people. If we leave now, without creating them stable employment and government, there will only be chaos.

You see, in the Middle East, the Sunni and Shiites are constantly fighting. And now that there is no stable government, who will take over? Will it be Iran, a country full of Shiite supporters? Well that may cause Jordan or Saudi Arabia to join with their fellow Sunni’s. The Middle East gets tenser and stiffer, the number of countries involved just escalates, and then Israel starts to feel threatened, there is too much religious unrest. What happens when Sunni and Shiite’s decide to put aside their difference for a while and get rid of the Jews? So Israel joins the war. Soon the countries populated with Jews and Christians get pulled in, and others soon follow. Quite soon you have every religion in the world tied in, a full-blown World War; World War III

A third world war would simply be down right awful. It is possible that it would take many years, it is possible it may never happen. But think, if it does, what would happen to your children, maybe even your grandchildren? Will thoughts of horrors of their future race through their brains? Will we be safe at home in our beds at night? Might we have the need to move away from our families and friends? Shall our children be born with disabilities due to nuclear explosions?’ It will be no better then any worldwide war before.

Answer 2

You should pay attention to some other questions. You should be asking Military people only about this. As far as I can tell, the ones who answer yes are either democrats or people who know no one in the military. I do appreciate that you asked the question in a respectful way. NO. The president is doing his job. WE are in a war that was sanctioned by the CONGRESS of the United States of America. That means that those in congress who voted for this war thought that it was what America wanted. Guess what?! at the time, we did. Remember 9/11??? You can't be for war only when it is for pay back and then want to pull out because you finally realize that war means death. WE MUST STICK IT OUT UNTIL WE PUT A STOP TO TYRANNY AND TERRORISM OVER THERE. I THINK OUR TROOPS HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB SO FAR, THERE IS STILL MORE TO BE DONE.

Answer 3

No. Because it has to be done.

To many times today, people wnat to wring their hands and beat on their chests, saying how bad things are. But for some reason, they do not want to do anything to help pick up the pieces.

In reality, a lot of the problem in the Middle East is fall-out from the former act of Colonialism. France & England (and other European countries) pillaged that region of the world for centuries. When they were finally forced to pull out, they left behind a mess that has never straightened itself out.

We see the same problems in Africa and Asia. Countries that were under Colonial control for decades or more suddenly trying to take care of things themselves. And sadly, the solution often tends to be a dictator taking control of everything.

Sadly, the only solution seems to be the hope that a Benevolent Dictator takes over a country. But that is not likely, so the cycles of bloodshead will only continue - until the people of the region start to "get their act together".

Answer 4

i think of allot of human beings do no longer purely like the president using fact he has prov en himself as the two a liar or a shown fool ,and individuals his own administration have resigned maximum individuals relatively have faith that he gained his final administration by using default with Florida vote fraud.,weapons of mass illusions LOL,oil magnate cronies, to no longer point out Katrina's fury. yet all that , the individuals can cope with . its the sacrificing of yank infantrymen that this us of a is commencing as much as loathe this president. We as American are used to the assumption of the assumption separation of church and state. and Iraq is a us of a divided by using faith and government, the only way Iraq would be democratic state is thru civil conflict ... or no longer. i do no longer think of the this us of a is able to provide up hundreds of it own infantrymen to be certain a democratic/ run state in Iraq. it relatively is a determination that Iraq could combat for and could spill its own blood for. and hence he's hated . this President pushed us right into a conflict that has grow to be a civil conflict as a replace of looking weapons of mass destruction we discovered deaths large parts

Answer 5

No. For all you not so war savvy people, reenforcements are a way to improve your odds of winning.

We need to win. Not lose. For all those who support a retreat and loss of the war you don't support our troops. Period.

It makes me sick when people act like the war is a hundred percent the presidents fault. There is balance of powers. Congress has to have a majority vote for us to go to war. Congress shares the blame.

Answer 6

No. By NOT sending in more troops we are destined to have more American casualties. One of the lessons of VietNam was that when Nixon decided (and was elected) to get us out of JFK and Johnson's war, he started the drawback almost immediately. This resulted in more American casualties.

Anybody over the age of 45 telling you otherwise is not only a political idealogue, they are a liar and are ignoring their history.

Answer 7

No I don't think so I think he is making a mistake by not letting the military make its own decisions about the combat rules of engagement.

Answer 8

Who knows? They are accomplishing zero by sitting at Fort Drum or Fort Ord. The 20K worth of troops are of more value killing terrorists. We should have had the additional 20K at the beginning of the war rather than its end.

Answer 9

I wonder whether or not the people shouting NO have a loved one in Iraq right now.

Answer 10

Do you even have to ask this question again? I have answered at least 25 of the same question.
all I have to say is keep are people home we can never win this war and to bad that Bush is to stupid to understand that.