2007-01-26 10:36:46 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
no, we shouldn't even be sending the ones there now. we should be slowly withdrawing. but bushy boy still wants a victory. but how many troops and innocent civilians should die? we first we in cause of 9/11, then the story changed to saddam was linked with al quada, then it changed when that turned out to be a lie, that there was MWD's in iraq (which was not true), and then the story changed once again to we have to stay and help the iraqi's. well if we had of stayed where we belonged we would not be in this mess, the innocents would not have lost their homes during raids, the innocents would not had been killed by our soldiers, and they would not had been raped by our soldiers, which i do not like the point that these creeps that killed innocents and raped kids should represent us...
2007-01-26 10:57:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The troop build-up is to put a stop to escalating violence not to support it.
The troops on the ground told the president that they needed more troops to cover all the areas that are needed. I believe they are in the best position to be giving advice to the president and making requests.
With my brother over there in the thick of it, perhaps I have a better understanding of the situation than some, but I don't see how pulling out or not giving the ground troops what they need to complete their mission is going to benefit anyone, here or there.
2007-01-26 10:45:46 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No way. We've seen them send more troops into Baghdad 4 times already. Our soldiers are at more risk, things settle down for a few weeks, then as soon as the "offensive," "Operation What-the-h*ll" or "surge" is over, the violence starts again only worse. And more of our soldiers and more Iraqis lie dead in the streets.
Does Bush really think he's got anyone conned into thinking it will be any different thistime?
2007-01-26 10:50:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
It's the only option we have. We can't lose in that region. I'm sorry to say that there is no easy solution to this problem nor is there that "quick fix" that anti-Bush people are screaming for. Pulling out of Iraq is the worst option. This is the last chance we have at suceeding and hopefully we do.
2007-01-26 10:51:18 · answer #4 · answered by Squawkers 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Think of it this way. If we pull all our troops out now and let Iraq deal with this themselves, they would most likely have a civil war. Bush is trying not to let this happen. They need to build up a police force and a military. I think its not necessary for anymore troops to go into Iraq. Iraq needs to start to defend itself and we need to stop babying them.
2007-01-26 10:50:59 · answer #5 · answered by Achilles 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lets see how they work out...if not send as many as possible, draft the crybaby cowardly liberals and send them to solve the problems.......
Surrendering is not the option.. Victory will be ours despite the Liberal Hippie, Commie Peaceniks
2007-01-26 11:16:08 · answer #6 · answered by PoliticallyIncorrect 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes!!! get a bunch of neocons who support Bush's plans of no planning and send them there to fight for George' s mega capitalist friends! Young American boys and girls owe not their lives to Bush's special interest friends!
2007-01-26 10:52:55 · answer #7 · answered by Nikolas S 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i would support about 200,000 ... and i would join and be a part of them if i thought what our administration was up to in iraq was to make peace over ther then come home ... thats obviously NOT what is going on tho is it ...
2007-01-26 10:45:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No omg send more men would lead to more casualties and why are we there in the first place
2007-01-26 10:41:43 · answer #9 · answered by Sam 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't want us there in the first place, bring our boys and young men home, now!
2007-01-26 10:44:24 · answer #10 · answered by darlene g 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋