2007-02-08 07:29:29 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I don't support the Troop surge in Baghdad because we are now forced to BEG NATO to send more troops to Afghanistan.
We really should have finished one war before we started another. If we are going to be sending troops all over the place, we need to reinstate the draft, as much as I'm opposed to forced enlistment. We just don't have enough troops for all of these wars.
2007-02-08 07:36:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is not a new strategy. It's a cop out... everyone asked for a new strategy, Bush sat behind the curtain for a few months then came out and said Ta-da! Here's your new strategy! More troops doing more of the same! Troop increases like this happen all the time.
Our best bet is to force Bush to follow a new strategy by hijacking his tax cuts or by ANY means necessary, create jobs in Iraq and protect the job sites, this will convince Iraqis that the U.S. is not their enemy, Bush is, and we are waking up to his lies, and when the militia ranks start thinning, we and/or the Iraqi government goes after their leaders. Also, all searches, sweeps, checkpoints, arrests, and trials should be conducted by Iraqis, Americans should be OUT of their jails since they've proven incapable of not sexually molesting the prisoners, and UN officers need to act as observers in prisons, the judicial system, and some other aspects of the transition.
bob the builder, do you read what other people say on this forum? I am not suggesting a "cut and run", read my suggestion and tell me it isn't better than Bush's "clear, hold, and build", the expensive, fascist, enemy-winning strategy which lost us Vietnam and will NOT be better because of an increase in the number of troops.
Edit: Bush is trying to fool the U.S. voters with his "troop surge" strategy, and on some U.S. voters it works, but to any Iraqi who sees more U.S. troops, it will be OBVIOUS that this is just more of the same.
2007-02-08 07:37:27 · answer #2 · answered by Aleksandr 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Even though I was against the war in Iraq in the first place, I do believe that we cannot leave it as is. That said, I am a OIF II veteran. If the surge does not accomplish what it is opposed to, then we need to withdraw. But then again, what is the goal of the surge? This has never been spelled out.
2007-02-08 07:36:40 · answer #3 · answered by ProLife Liberal 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I support it if the Iraqi's step up to do their part. The sooner that Iraq is stable the sooner our troops can come home. However the preliminary reports I've heard about the performance of the Iraqi forces don't fill me with optimism.
2007-02-08 07:36:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I do not for several reasons.
1. It is a desperate ploy by a morally bankrupt administration
2. I lived during VietNam, lost a brother and many friends. It solved nothing.
3. I do not believe that we even understand the mind set over there and 25,000 armed men will not change that.
4. I am old and would not have to go, but I do not want you or your friends to die for some unknown reason.
2007-02-08 07:35:09 · answer #5 · answered by Jim R 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
NO! I support leaving Iraq and going to where the terrorists live. Iraq is their chosen battlefield, why are we fighting them on their terms? We're told that the terrorists are coming into Iraq and we have to win there. We won WWII by taking the battle to the enemy not waiting for them to come to us, let's do the same here. We will never win playing by their rules, on their chosen turf.
2007-02-08 07:43:21 · answer #6 · answered by Alan S 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think it's a waste of time.
Money is not the issue Bush dumps billions out of airplanes.
As a liberal Vietnam Vet I'm more of a fix it with carpet bombs than fix it with bilingual policemen kinna guy.
Go big Red Go
2007-02-08 07:50:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
YES. It is the strategy of the Commander in Chief and his Generals that are running the war.
They are the people most privy to the progress or lack of it. They see the needs first hand.
We don't need a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks trying to tell the Military what to do and not do. Actually, Bush should butt out himself. He should have told the military to get it done and for them to try to not kill everyone in Iraq, then wait for the conclusion.
2007-02-08 07:39:38 · answer #8 · answered by plezurgui 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes and maybe not. Only if 'enough' are sent to take care of the job, but then I'm not the military leader Hanoi Jane is
2007-02-08 07:34:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
NO! Because republicans have been WRONG about every last aspect of the war and the vast majority of generals and military analysts say its a miserable idea.
2007-02-08 07:35:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋