English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I don't want any name-calling, slander or whatever

I want to know why because I haven't heard an official reason

2007-02-09 12:09:34 · 15 answers · asked by Go Blue 6 in Politics & Government Politics

15 answers

He's said, and so has most generals on the ground that the surge are reinforcements for the troops already there. More troops will help our military win the war quicker, so they can come home. The reinforcements will also give some much needed relief. I think we should of had more to begin with. That, in my opinion is one of the major mistakes made in this war.

2007-02-09 12:15:49 · answer #1 · answered by mojojo66 3 · 1 1

Kill the bad guys.

Surge the troops into Baghdad with a couple battalions of Iraqis to follow. We clear the city neighborhood and leave Iraqi troops to keep it clear when we leave. Before we had been clearing and leaving (to keep a small footprint and not upset too many libs) which just allowed the bad guys to come back. Once the city is cleared, then it will be easier for the Iraqis to keep up security. Then there should just be scattered resistance from loosely organized cells, not large organized groups controlling whole neighborhoods.

The Democrats don't like the plan because they don;t like anything the administration does. (Remember during the election the big complaint was that we didn't have enough troops to control the situation). It is telling that there is no CONSTRUCTIVE criticism from the new majority party. They are just laying the groundwork for their "I told you so" campaign later this year.

2007-02-09 12:19:46 · answer #2 · answered by sdmike 5 · 0 2

I agree with the "no name-calling, slander, etc.!" Bless you for that! Especially against our elected representatives of any side of the aisle.

If he does so, he's put the Democrats into a position to put up or shut up. They've claimed they want the war stopped, they've put up a useless resolution that has no teeth.

Either they'll actually try to stop him and stop posing, or they won't and they'll lose credibility. It's a good position to be in if they are serious about what they say, and they'll stand up to him and get some credibility with those against the war, or it's a terrible position for them because they've been opposing him and the war for political power of their own and really don't want to stop it or fear to stop it.

I'll be interested to see how it plays out. I hope the ethical people (whichever side that is) wins.

2007-02-09 12:18:10 · answer #3 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 1 0

Well you'd have to ask the people he asked advice for. He's asked for advice from military officers on what it would take to win in Iraq. More troops to tighten up security was part of the plan. Eventually the Iraqi people will have to get up off their *** and do some things for themselves, such as the security of their own country, instead of relying on our soldiers to do everything for them but until then, we need more troops to watch each others back until the Iraqis learn how to lead and live in a democratic nation. - And for the Bush bashers, no matter what he decided to do you would still be whining. If he had asked for a troop reduction you'd still be boo-hooing, because you have no clue.

2007-02-09 12:23:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

The General,s are calling for more troops, the Politician,s
should stick to passing useless laws, and quit trying pretend,
they understand Military tactic.

2007-02-09 12:31:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The same reason he sent our troops to Iraq on lies and their coming homes in caskets and maimed beyond recognition. he dreamed up the idea that 21,000 troops could save Iraq and they will also be coming home just like the others, dead and wounded. Just a 8 year old bully that wouldn't try to read or write, learn to tie his shoes or ride a bike, just no common sense.

2007-02-09 12:21:11 · answer #6 · answered by Nicki 6 · 1 0

The plan was stated to be able to not only quell insurgency in urban areas but to maintain a security force to keep insurgent forces from immediately regrouping. It's very difficult for a group on the run to gain a stronghold and easier to spot them in movement..

2007-02-09 12:15:41 · answer #7 · answered by ©2009 7 · 1 0

A friend of mine is in the U.S. Army in Baghdad. He said the reason for the surge is to kill as many insurgents as possible and to push the remaining Insurgents to the borders and wipe them out there. It will either work or it won't he said. And if it does not work, there is no backup plan.

2007-02-09 12:15:41 · answer #8 · answered by Orion777 5 · 1 1

The logic is the President won't have to admit Iraq is a lost cause for another six months or so.

2007-02-09 12:14:33 · answer #9 · answered by LightningSlow 7 · 1 1

maybe too many americans were getting killed and he thought that the ones that were left were learning not to make targets of themselves so he thought that he would throw some more at them, along with the umpteen billions of dollars of tax money going to haliburton and other military contractors.

2007-02-09 12:21:28 · answer #10 · answered by tomhale138 6 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers