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

the point of these 20,000 troop "surges"? Does Bush think he knows better than US Generals & combat veterans on how to fight the war in Iraq or is he just sending in what he's got & betting/praying that things work out?

2007-02-25 03:49:56 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

14 answers

It's probably the most his focus groups told him he could get away with.

I don't think he's listened to his generals, his father or used common sense in any aspect of the war in Iraq.

2007-02-25 03:55:31 · answer #1 · answered by Jimbo 2 · 1 1

You can not justify a position in an argument by taking only part of the truth to support your side. OTHER US Generals have told Bush that he NEEDS 20,000 plus troops in Iraq. THE ONES IN THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT NOW. Those are the ones that GW relies on for advice and the ones that he listens to on military matters. He does not claim to know more than the military professionals and that is a ridiculous statement for you to make. You are listening to old retired generals and McCain,who all have political agendas, because what they say supports your opinion. From what I have seen on this website, a small army of left wing loons THINK they know more than president Bush. Most of them have no expertise

2007-02-25 04:20:16 · answer #2 · answered by just the facts 5 · 0 0

Look, Bush hasn't listened to anyone that disagreed with him since he has been in office. The Baker report - 9 months of work by military professionals? He trashed canned it.... The advice of the commanders in the field? The professional soldiers? The Generals who were there and who had the knowledge of many, many years in the military and some with one or two wars under their belt? Professional military strategists? He fired the Generals (publically called "retirement"), recalled commanders, ridiculed the strategists.....

He is an idiot who has dragged our country into a terrible war with no legal right to do so. It is not in the nature of our country to invade other countries for the purpose of "bringing democracy" and "nation building".. He has alienated ALL of our allies except the British Prime Minister (who has lost his job and is recalling troops at the demand of the British people). He has torn the middle-east apart. We have lost our moral compass thanks to the torture and illegal activities in Guantanamo and Abu Gahraib. While he was busy trying to get control of the oilfields of Iraq (the real and true reason for going in there) - North Korea has developed a delivery system for it's primitive nuclear program, Iran has buddied up with Russia to build a nuclear program (now think about that madman in Iran having nuclear weapons), Al Qaeda has rebuilt their training camps on the Afghan border, the "insurgents" are increasing in number as every whacko in the world heads for the middle-east, the "insurgents" have developed more sophisticated weapons for blowing up human beings and shooting down our "state of the art" helicopters.

Then the human cost - well over 3000 of our young soldiers dead, thousands permanently crippled (and who will be kicked to the curb when they get home - ask any Vietnam Vet), untold and uncounted dead Iraqi civilians; their towns and villages bombed to oblivion...

Mr. Bush will do as he has done all his life. He will hem and haw around until he can leave office and let someone else clean up his mess. His daddy did that for him all his life, his mommy made excuses for him all his life and he has never accepted responsibility for any of his actions - ever.

Our country will not recover from the actions of Mr. Bush for generations. To say nothing about the amount of debt our children and grandchildren will have to pay back.

Just one other thought, in order to have 200,000 or 300,000 troops in the field, they would have to bring back the draft....... I wonder how many of the wars supporters would head for Canada or Mexico to avoid it?

2007-02-25 04:18:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I believe he is doing as much as he can all the while attempting to prevent the loss of American lives in Iraq. Looking at the big picture inundating Iraq with American troops could lead to
a huge casualty list. This would undermine his attempts to liberate the Middle East as a whole. It is going to be a long road and if the casualty list rises too fast the left would absolutely demand a withdrawl.
Personally I feel it is obvious now that we should have done that from the start and Iraqi's would be more apt to distance themselves from the idea of being ruled by fear rather than Democracy.

2007-02-25 04:01:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

thinking Saddam ought to not administration the borders of Iraq with a million squaddies how ought to the individuals with a million/2 that quantity. same bunch have been sneaking weapons throughout the time of then as now, in basic terms difference we hear of their assaults now. ok a number of the weapons have been been added in by skill of the CIA and Mossad for use on the Iraqi human beings. I do keep in mind some explosions suggested in Baghdad in the previous the conflict centred at civilians in basic terms weren't on Fox information are any information organization extremely. Who cared in any respect that some Sunni's have been been killed till some individuals have been on the floor caught up interior the mess.

2016-10-16 11:13:27 · answer #5 · answered by scafuri 4 · 0 0

GEN Eric Shinseki told Bush and the Senate exactly what would be needed for the taking and subsequent occupation of Iraq. Know what happened to him? The day after his Senate testimony, Paul Wolfowitz went in front of the same Senate and told them Shinseki didn't know what he was talking about. Shinseki "retired" shortly thereafter. His predictions came true almost to exact number he predicted. Mission Accomplished, my Butt.

2007-02-25 04:36:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Bush forgot to add one of the zeroes onto 20,000...so it is secretly 200,000 troops for his "surge."

2007-02-25 04:45:30 · answer #7 · answered by Jackson Leslie 5 · 0 0

Seems ridicoulas to me to. I think like you, send as many as you have with all the artillary you can get deliverd and sweep it up, and come on back home after we have established a military base there to prevent future crap from Iran or any other nation. Put them down the way we did Japan.

2007-02-25 03:59:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Well I agree you need more than 20,000.
I think you need about 200,000 not 300,000.
I don't know what is going through his head, but he only has another year or so left as president.

2007-02-25 03:55:48 · answer #9 · answered by Compton,CA 4 · 1 1

While Bush is listening to Cheney, and Fox News, he 'believes' he is winning.
Isn't it time the American people take to the streets in protest against this idiot and his loony ideas?
They have tried the vote, and Bush has wiped his **** with their wishes, so he should be 'forced' to listen.

2007-02-25 04:00:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers