OR DO YOU AGREE WITH DEMOCRATS THAT THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA.
The media has largely ignored the fact that the troops who are being sent in by Bush will not have the armor and equipment that they need to be effective and that soldiers will DIE because the Republicans have not equipped them properly.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901584_pf.html
Equipment For Added Troops Is Lacking
New Iraq Forces Must Make Do, Officials Say
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 30, 2007; A12
Boosting U.S. troop levels in Iraq by 21,500 would create major logistical hurdles for the Army and Marine Corps, which are short thousands of vehicles, armor kits and other equipment needed to supply the extra forces, U.S. officials said.
2007-02-01 06:04:35 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The increase would also further degrade the readiness of U.S.-based ground forces, hampering their ability to respond quickly, fully trained and well equipped in the case of other military contingencies around the world and increasing the risk of U.S. casualties, according to Army and Marine Corps leaders.
"The response would be slower than we might like, we would not have all of the equipment sets that ordinarily would be the case, and there is certainly risk associated with that," the Marine Corps commandant, Gen. James Conway, told the House Armed Services Committee last week.
President Bush's plan to send five additional U.S. combat brigades into Iraq has left the Army and Marines scrambling to ensure that the troops could be supported with the necessary armored vehicles, jamming devices, radios and other gear, as well as lodging and other logistics.
2007-02-01 06:05:18 · update #1
Trucks are in particularly short supply. For example, the Army would need 1,500 specially outfitted -- known as "up-armored" -- 2 1/2 -ton and five-ton trucks in Iraq for the incoming units, said Lt. Gen. Stephen Speakes, the Army's deputy chief of staff for force development.
"We don't have the [armor] kits, and we don't have the trucks," Speakes said in an interview. He said it will take the Army months, probably until summer, to supply and outfit the additional trucks. As a result, he said, combat units flowing into Iraq would have to share the trucks assigned to units now there, leading to increased use and maintenance.
2007-02-01 06:05:49 · update #2
Republicans talk a good game about supporting our troops. However, they do crap like you mentioned.
2007-02-01 06:10:15 · answer #1 · answered by Count Acumen 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Only a few people are privy to all the elements needed to make a sound judgment on this action. As far as sending them over there without proper equipment, I think that is another judgment call.
More/better equipment would be nice, but more effective, would be a united country sending them over there telling them to get the job done, and then come home. All the whining about why we are there and where the WMD's only invigorates the enemies to work harder.
About 7 or 8 hundred years ago William Wallace tried to fight a war without a united country behind him. It just isn't as effective. Leaving the battlefield before the war is won, will only move the battlefield somplace else. Time for the armchair quarterbacks to sit down and let the war commence.
2007-02-01 06:17:32 · answer #2 · answered by tmarschall 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Agree
2016-05-24 02:25:35 · answer #3 · answered by Margaret 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is a terrible idea. The fact that the current level of troops is unable to counter the insurgency is only testimony to the dire situation in Iraq.
By sending more troops, we only further obligate ourselves to the terrible situation there. We must begin a phased redeployment of all American troops in the region. The Iraqis must know that if they want democracy and liberty, then they must be willing to make the sacrifices necessary to defend those values, or else they will lose them to Iran, Syria and al-Qaeda.
2007-02-01 06:08:54 · answer #4 · answered by Jackson Leslie 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Again, someone blaming Republicans. How about the independents and Democrats who favor sending more troops to the war, along with more equipment? I know plenty of them. Indeed, one is a Senator.As for me, I favor more troops and more and better equipment.
If we pull out now the holocaust that will take place after we leave will make this war look like amateur hour.
2007-02-01 06:11:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
First off, not all repubs agree with the bubblehead's plan. second, GWB doesn't really give a flying Fu@k about the people he's putting in harms way except for the fact that it gives him extraordinary powers as a "wartime president". Personally I'm amazed that he hasn't been snipered yet.
2007-02-01 06:12:38 · answer #6 · answered by Alan S 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Both republicans and democrats got you into the war, and whether they like it or not, you are there for the long haul. If you stay, your people die. If you leave, Iran takes over.
Give yourselves all a pat on the back for that one!
2007-02-01 06:09:23 · answer #7 · answered by Runa 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
are you not aware that we sent troops into harms way in almost every war we've ever fought "ill-equipped"? the Sherman tank was no match for the German Panzers, but we sent the troops into battle with them! if you're truly worried about the troops equipment not being up to par, then lobby to get them what they need to fight the war!
2007-02-01 06:09:29 · answer #8 · answered by kapute2 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Since when has Bush ever been concerned with the well being of the troops.
2007-02-01 06:09:22 · answer #9 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Your name translates into "I am gay" right?
They wouldn't let you in because they asked and you told so you bash our troops.
We should have a troop surge and the liberals should vote to give them proper equipment.
2007-02-01 06:17:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋