Than his last plan? Really...how is it different? Adding 20,000 more soldiers? That brings us up to around 150,000. We have had that same amount in Iraq several times before-it never helped. How will this make a change-how is it any different than his catch phrase "Stay The Course"?
2007-01-30 15:34:58 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Sugar J, i have been paying attention. Very close attention. Probably more than you have. I dont form my opinion from the media. I formed my opinion on Bushs new plan from what it is and what it isnt. It doesnt seem like anything different than his last plan. Your rant against me did not even address this question at all. You called me ignorant, yet you cant even address the question at hand-you just go off on a rant insulting others. Now who is ignorant again?
2007-01-30 15:50:49 · update #1
there really is not much difference from the past plans, in this one the iraqi prime minister knows with the way most americans are thinking now he will have to show something he never would have had to in the past, in other words his free ride is over, he gets results now or he will fall and our president knows it is his last gasp at saving a failed plan, one doomed from the start as we really had no need to invade in the first place
2007-01-30 15:48:20 · answer #1 · answered by billc4u 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Right now, our troops in Iraq are very stretched out...especially with the increase of insurgent attacks over the last couple of months. 20,000 additional troops was a number that was suggested a while ago but was shot down. That increase will give our soldiers over there some kind of a break and help reinforce the already stretched out lines.
I also remember hearing that he plans on focusing a lot more on Baghdad, to insure the new governments stability.
So there it is.
2007-01-30 23:44:48 · answer #2 · answered by editor_andy 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You hit it on the head. Not any different at all. The Bush administration denied for years that more troops were needed in Iraq, now out of the blue all of a sudden he is for it. And sadly, 20,000 more is a slap in the face as to what is really needed. Without a doubt this will make a third trip to Iraq for me, as i am in the Army.
Oh, and to Sugar J. Stop spouting off at the mouth and go enlist if you are so Gung Ho.
2007-01-30 23:57:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
From day one when this country under the leadership of Bush has mismanaged the war in Iraq. He refused to listen to those who know how conduct war and fight war. His main advisors were the men who had such wide knowledge of the military and "former men of uniform; Dick Chaney and Donald Rumsfelt.
Combine Bush and his military record shows why we are losing in Iraq and any new plan is just "stay the course."
2007-01-31 11:59:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Iraq war is over. We are now fighting Hazbullah and Al qaida who have come into Baghdad from Iran and Syria. The 20,000 additional troops are going to secure the borders and try to keep the insurgents from those two countries from entering Iraq.
If you were paying attention you would know that and not ask such an ignorant question. Instead, you listen to the slanted version that the media tells you and you believe it. It's not hard to find the answers if you find a way to avoid buying what the left wing media is selling you. Don't feel singled out, unfortunately, millions of Americans have bought this slanted view and thus we have lost our resolve. Try forming your own opinions by keeping informed and you won't be in the dark and you won't ask such short sighted questions.
Hey Daves,
Nothing in your question or response indicates that you have any knowlege of what's going on. If you do, then you did not show it and it means your question was a rhetorical one and you just wanted to hear yourself talk. Your "question" was not insightful, nor was it an original idea. It was one we have all heard a million times on CNN. That's why I assumed you were one of the victims of left wing media brainwashing. Sure we had more troops in the past, but not to concentrate on border security. I did answer your question, but like all libs, you didn't want to hear the answer.
2007-01-30 23:42:53 · answer #5 · answered by Jimmy 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Bush took a wagon train into Iraq simply to just make a circle and have a bunch of Indians take pop shots at them. Move families and people not able to fight out of the country. We need to pull out and set up in Afghanistan. We need to fight more of a air war using people on the ground to identify targets. We need to make our target smaller and theirs larger.
SUGAR J THINKS WE ARE GOING TO CONTROL THE BORDERS OF SYRIA AND IRAN.
2007-01-30 23:58:31 · answer #6 · answered by George B 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well...uh... you see...um... Stay the course...um... Nucular Weapons... Um... 9/11... um...Iraq... Uh....
There you have it! Dubyah's eloquent explanation for the necessity for a surge in troops. And yes, I purposely misspelled Nuclear, to be phonetically close to the way that idiot would say it.
The troop surge is just another attempt to kill off as many Americans as he can before he gets kicked out of Office. I'm sure if he tries REALLY hard, he'll have another couple thousand caskets flying back to the states by 2009.
2007-01-30 23:40:47 · answer #7 · answered by Infidelus_Prime 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
it's not different.
Bush is an idiot many times over. I am ashamed that I voted for him and would love to see him impeached.
2007-01-30 23:40:02 · answer #8 · answered by sk33t3r 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The different will be that we gonna loose more of our soldiers for his personal benefit.
2007-01-30 23:38:59 · answer #9 · answered by Javy 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Unlawfully invaders never win. Don't know what he is expecting!! a miracel?
2007-01-30 23:39:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋