I think it's ridiculous! they're targets out there! anyone who agrees doesn't really care about the fact we're lost over 3,000 servicemen and women...
2007-02-12 12:50:27 · 21 answers · asked by boricua_lilly 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
ok i see some ppl are comparing to other wars...well this is now i didn't live back when D-day went down or WWII as a whole...so don't compare loss of lives to make a point; it's shameless
2007-02-12 13:06:54 · update #1
It will not be enough. We need to send many many more over there to get the job done and do it right. This is a war, whether we like it or not, people die in war, men, women, children and soldiers. If not for some of the wars in years past, where would we be now?? As far as losing 3000 soldiers, that is nothing compared to the previous wars that have occurred. Is it terrible and sad?? Yes it is, but again, it is war and people will die. The thing to remember is that our soldiers are over there doing the best they can, but, they, as the soldiers in Vietnam, are having to fight a war with the world looking over their shoulders and criticizing every move, every shot they take and the people that die. They are not doing what soldiers fighting in a war should be doing, they are playing the game with the people whinning and crying about all the "servicemen and women" that are dying over there. Shut up and let them do their jobs and this thing would be over with a lot sooner. That also means to let the President and the Pentagon lead and fight the war to win it and not bow down to political pressure and cause more deaths. The President and the Pentagon have done the same, they have played the game with the same type of whinning people and that is what is causing the war to drag on. So let them fight the war as a war is supposed to be fought and be proud of them all. Hug or kiss a soldier today and thank them for their committment and service.
2007-02-12 13:05:59 · answer #1 · answered by medic427 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hold on just a minute, imagine that you wanted to go to war with another country but troop strength was not enough in the country that you are occupying, how would you cover up moving 10's of thousands of more troops into the region without tipping the "enemy" off to what you are doing. You announce that you are sending 21,500 more troops when in fact many more then that are on the way. What you ask was what I thought of the troop surge, the answer to that is it sucks, I think we will be at war with Iran in the spring, there are other signs that tell me this, this is one that I hope I am wrong on. But I fear I am not. But think about it, another fleet is deployed into the Gulf. The president has ordered doubling of the strategic oil reserves, and just the other day there was a little article in the back of the paper that said there was plan's to "beef" up the number of troops in Afghanistan. Makes you wonder don't it?
2007-02-12 21:05:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think it is ill-planned and ill-advised
The generals in charge say that we do not have enough equipment to supply this "surge"--not enough body armor, not enough armored Humvees. Even if a person is in favor of this "surge", it is ridiculous to send in troops without proper equipment.
The Administration has not made clear what the objectives are, other than to support the Iraqi troops, mainly in Baghdad. I fail to see how this is going to stop the civil war that is raging throughout the country.
2007-02-12 21:02:51 · answer #3 · answered by KCBA 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Its sad that were losing men and women in a war but look at history. You win wars with troops. Troops die. Look up the deaths of d'day. Thats way more then Iraq, in one day! And now its almost a national holiday. Its a sad thing but life is a risk.
2007-02-12 21:00:53 · answer #4 · answered by Shello 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
when you compare the casualties in iraq to other wars of our past, that's nothing... now i understand those who have a personal connection to one of those 3000 may see it differently, im not that emotionless. i do however think that it was the only plan that came out of the iraq study group that bush could have utilized without abandoning his "stay the course." i think it is more of an image booster rather than a well thought out plan... however if it does work, so many people across this country are going to be beyond salty and i will laugh...
2007-02-12 20:57:08 · answer #5 · answered by I run... 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
In a city of millions what effect can twenty thousand more troops have? At best the only thing we can accomplish is an occupation.
2007-02-12 20:57:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's more bad policy heaped up on top of bad policy. It's more of the same we've had before and it isn't going to do anything to improve the situation there. It is just another word for escalation of the war, that's all there is to it. It's wrong and we should get out now.
2007-02-12 20:56:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I am the decider,I am the decision maker in Iraq,I wanted more troops,but the flaming libs shut me down.not enough to do the job,I need more troops. that's what I think,,decider JR
2007-02-12 21:07:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Too little, too late. Three years ago, it might have worked, but since the Dems have retaken congress, the enemy has been encouraged to hold out and wait for a change in presidents. In the meantime, as you said, it'll just be more of our people for the bastards to shoot at!
2007-02-12 20:56:20 · answer #9 · answered by texasjewboy12 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Australia has only lost two people. Howard the Coward needs to step up or shut up.
2007-02-12 20:54:26 · answer #10 · answered by Stop_the_Klan@yahoo.com 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋