do you think that adding more troops in iraq is a good idea??/?

Answer 1

if we are going to be there, then be there all the way.

if not, then leave completly

this half half stuff is just putting troops more in danger.

Answer 2

My opinion is that the President could have ordered extra troops to Iraq on the top of July 2006. the only reason i think of it incredibly is by way of the fact the media replaced into in a hoopla approximately Baghdad initiating the civil conflict in Iraq, and the 172nd Stryker Bgd. replaced into prolonged yet another 4 months of their deployment (the 1st brigade to be prolonged in an exceedingly long term, it even made national information). At that factor there could have been a hurry to place extra squaddies in Iraq. The reasoning in the back of it incredibly is because of the fact we've so few troops to hold decrease back any rebel activity, that any soldier we loose, is a necessary area in our protection there. Now on if i think of it fairly is a sturdy theory in the long-term. particular and no. particular if it fairly is basically short term, for a 300 and sixty 5 days or 2. yet we can't save extending squaddies. the ethical is getting low for some, and recruitment is down, so we will not have the skill to maintain up the %. at which we attempt to characteristic troops. So this would't be yet another situation the place our troops go through the consiquenses. and that i, for one, would hate to have a ton of persons in a piss some draft, it incredibly is precisely what would take place if we've that great quantity of troops in Iraq for extra advantageous than, say, 5 years. i'm no longer against the draft, I basically understand that many human beings are. i wish that replaced into this style of answer you have been searching for!

Answer 3

What would that do? Its an unwinnable war. You can't win in a jungle guerrilla war or in an urban one. There is no one to overthrow. The US far above North Viet Nam bombed almost constantly. They shelled the edge of Viet Nam with battleships all safe out at sea. They napalmed the heck out of the jungles. They tried to advance will helicopter drops. And they kept sending more and more soldiers.


Niel Buddehead - get a grip. Who are you to threaten with nukes? The is attitude is why the US should get rid of their nukes.

Hi cnsvtvba - The war in Iraq has NEVER been about terrorists.
There is no Iraq military to speak of. Another 21,500 would hardly create a wave as this number is a small percentage of the troops already there. There is no good way out yet.

David D - don't get yer red necked panties in a knot. Have a Shirley Temple and a nice bubble bath to take the nasties away. (see I can be a jerk too) And its not about the troops. They just have to follow stupid orders.

Answer 4

I think it's hypocritical.

The Bush administration has consistantly claimed that they listen to their military commanders, yet few of them seem to think that a troop surge will help.

Recently, when UK accounced that the British troops will be withdrawn, Richard Cheney said that it was a sign that the secrity situation in parts of Iraq was improving (although the British commanders didn't make this claim).

To say that the improvement in security is allowing troops to be withdrawn, and simultaneously claim that a surge in troops is needed for security seems contradictory.

However, the "surge" in American troops will add about as many boots as the UK is withdrawing, so actually the "surge" is a myth anyway. The net number of troops in Iraq will be essentially unchanged.

Answer 5

No...it's such a messed up situation. Sending more troops is not going to help..but what is the alternative? If we pull out completely right now I think that will be devastating to everyone involved. I am so sorry for the families of those who have loved ones being sent over there right now, but we have to stick it out for the sake of at least attempting to make right our wrong...which is starting this war in the first place. I really don't know what the answer is but I think you have to strongly consider the consequences of pulling out completely right now.

Answer 6

yes! The idea is to increase the number of soldiers to come in and take out the insurgent suicide fighters from Iran and Syria that are plaguing the efforts to get Iraq back in the hands of its own military.

The more soldiers we send in at once, the faster the job will get done so that more time can be spent on training Iraqi soldiers to take over and the sooner reconstruction can begin, and of course withdrawal.

If the liberals have their way and we pull out of Iraq too soon then we will be in big trouble here in this country because mark my words, we will have catastrophic attacks worse than 911. The terrorists would see it as a great weakness if we pull out now, and will have the last laugh. I for one do not want to risk that. It would change the way of life here and I'm sure it will not be good.

So, yes the surge plan of sending in more soldiers in wave would be the only common sense way to go.

Answer 7

For what purpose?

It only exposes more young men and women to getting killed by guerrilla warfare from both the Sunnis and Shiites.

If the Iraqi Army has not been trained enough during the almost five years of US occupation, they will never be trained enough to protect their "Democracy."

It is time we admitted that toppling the old government was not very well planned; especially the mess that Iraq is in now.

Gradual withdrawal should commence; not increasing our involvment.

Answer 8

it's not really MORE troops, it's the same troops over and over. Enlistment is down...the National Guard is used like regular army with no end in sight...I would hate to be in that position, having served 2 years and be called up again...leaving my wife with little money...adding 20,000 more troops won't help much...if they were saying 80,000, that might help...but what's the point...you can't make martyrs and expect to win.

Answer 9

yes
once again I am seeeing some panty waste hide behind a skirt or teletubees out there ...I hope you are stuck on the 20th floor of a burning building with a bunch of liberal queefs sitting in the parking lot trying to figure out if coming to your aid is the right thing to do .Its obvious you have never known what its like to be in a situation other than running out of tampons at a white elephant party or jerkin your gerkin and running out of hand cream.. Your a disgrace to the American people. I am sorry that the brave ones through out history that have fought and those who have died. gave you a tongue in the first place... you truly dishonor those who fight and who have died for your liberal bickering
Its not about the president morons its about our troops and the tremendous task they have
cut and run or retreat is not an option

why dont you go over there and settle this since you apparently know how to run the military and the government better....thats right stick to your lattes and manicures

I would challenge any of you to spend time in those countries spouting off with your my uncle made me sit on his lap and my mother breast fed me too long frame of mind.....you would not last further more you could see that your respect for our servicemembers is lacking....
FOR THOSE WHO FOUGHT FOR IT FREEDOM IS A FEELING THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW!

If the commanders say that they need more troops to get the job done than I cant understand where you guys are coming from unles your sole mission inlife is to be a road block on the path to progress... Maybe we are a little over streched but do you starve the cows just because you dont like the farmer?

Answer 10

Not only do I say, "No!" but I think we should bring home the troops that are currently in Iraq.

The ideal number of U.S. troops in Iraq = 0.

Answer 11

It's ridiculous...the problems in that country and with those people are not going to be solved by just shipping more American soldiers over there to be used as buffers. The Middle East has been at war for centuries...no amount of troops can quell that dissention.