BUSH: "..And I ask you to support our troops in the field, and those on their way." -Who is kidding who here?

Question

"Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq, and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field, and those on their way." (Applause.)

The above is a quote from Bush's state of the union address.

Do you think that there is an ongoing effort here to make Americans think that if they don't support Bush's policy in Iraq, that they are also NOT supporting the troops?

Every decent person hopes all troops are okay, and come back safe and sound. Everyone supports the troops.

In this speech, Bush cleverly slips in the line "and for those on their way" to force everyone to applaud the sending of more troops. He links the new strategy with general support for the wellbeing of the troops. Did you catch it?

Maybe a show of support for the troops would actually be to send 250,000 extra troops. That would truly help the troops there to succeed. And if Iraq really is the focus of the war on terror, then why not send this number?

Answer 1

Because that might cause the realization of the stated goals.

A democratic and free Iraq was never the actual goal.

A democratic Iraq would nationalize oil and use the currency that would be most beneficial to Iraq, not the US or It's oil Companies.

A democratic Iraq would never allow the construction of several permanent US bases and would ask for the US to leave sooner rather than later.

A democratic Iraq would likely be an Islamic State and therefore would not likely politically support US policy in the region.

An Iraq free from violence would not offer the proper launching pad for a wider escalation of the conflict into Iran.

A sovereign Iraq would not permit the repair and reopening of the oil pipeline between Iraq and Israel.

If the stated goals were the true goals:

We would have secured the borders immediately to prevent the expected influx of freedom fighters and neighboring influences.

We would not have dissolved all national and local military and social structures, ensuring a power vacuum.

We would have secured the numerous weapons caches throughout the country, instead of allowing them to be used by the destabilizing forces present.

Our President would not have said "Bring em on!", ensuring that even more foreign fighters would respond and travel to Iraq.

We would not have used white phosphorous or a new napalm in urban areas, ensuring some horrific civilian casualties.

We would not have authorized torture, and would have prevented the abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Gharab.

We would not have lost 9 billion dollars in cash, ensuring funding for our enemies.

We would not have lost many weapons in Iraq, arming our enemies, and would have tracked the serial numbers in accordance with applicable regulations.

We would have directed rebuilding efforts on projects that would benefit the Iraqi citizens, instead of building bases and the world's largest embassy for our use.

We would have allowed international investment in Iraq after reconstruction began, instead of barring all but the coalition of the willing from Iraq.

We would have actively engaged ALL off the countries in the region for assistance at the beginning of the violence, including Iran and Syria.

We would not dismiss CIA findings that no nuclear weapons program exist in Iran.

We would not resort to name calling and use the word "Evil" to describe the leadership of other countries.

We have the greatest military in the world. There is no mission our military can not accomplish, given proper leadership. I refuse to believe that the Generals in charge were so incompetent, and so oblivious to history, that they threw victory away accidentally.

The only reasonable conclusion I can reach is that the current outcome is the true desired outcome, and the generals were forced or intimidated into following a policy that they had to know would not achieve the stated objectives.

Twice under this administration, the military has failed to deliver to their potential.

First the failure to intercept or destroy even one airliner in nearly two hours on 9/11/01, then the keystone cops approach to Iraq.

The best way to support our troops, is to press for impeachment of this administration and the immediate cessation of hostilities in Iraq and withdrawal of all US troops.

End the illegal occupation of Iraq


BRING ALL OF OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!!!

Answer 2

People need to get their terminology straight. The 'war' in Iraq was over in 2003. Warfare is closing with and engaging an enemy to seize ground, destroy equipment, and kill people. Stop talking about 'winning' because their's nothing to win. Wat we are doing now is a nation stabilization and building mission. NOT a military mission!

Throwing more troops in the field is not necessarily a 'solution' to the Iraq exit strategy.

And on a side note: this is sorta like closing the barn door after the cow done got out. IF this was a sound strategy for stabilizing the region, it should've been done in the beginning. AND if this same philosophy was used after 9-11 in Afghanistan, OBL would be dead or in custody by now.

Answer 3

Bush is sending in more troops to appease the leadership in Iraq so they will take a more provocative approach to the
Shite Militia.
Kinda a bribe.
It isn't that 20,000 more troops will make a major difference, it is that if the Iraqi Army (and leaders) would do their job instead of supporting sectarian slayings it might actual calm down, and THEY want more USA support.

Answer 4

The Pres does lack subtelty, doesnt he? It felt like he was begging for support from his party during the speech. He knows he's in trouble with this policy. He can barely get the 25k troops approved...and unless there's some rapid progress in Iraq, the house and senate will be pushing for an end to this fiasco. At least, that's my hope. :-)

Answer 5

A show of support for our troops? the issue here is more than terrorism, the issue is keeping aggressor nations in check, does anyone in their right mind want an Iranian religious dictator to have nuclear weapons? the big picture here my friend is preventing nuclear proliferation and God willing everyone will eliminate their nuclear arsenals, this is a VERY dangerous world we live in and it is beyond me that many Americans are apathetic or ignorant of that fact we need a draft to address the situation of global security and to promote human rights, I fear that the situation will escalate if we do not step up and fight what is clearly evil...this is a regional and global issue NOT just Iraq.

Answer 6

Penny Mae, we are instructed contained in the Bible that we are meant to assist our government no rely what our emotions. I gain this thoroughly. Our troops are completely volunteer meaning that they are there for our earnings no longer because of the fact we rigidity them to realize this. i think that makes them particularly large ladies and men! i visit proceed to desire for and help them in all of our efforts foreign places and at abode. Have an outstanding week. thank you, Eds .

Answer 7

Enough troops have died. Saddam is dead. It's time to come home. This is turning into another Vietnam.

Answer 8

MAYBE U SHOULD GO THEN HOW BOUT THAT!!!!!!!