3170 U.S. soldiers killed already are the U.S going to learn troops are not the way to solve the problem..
2007-03-07 03:31:35 · 21 answers · asked by bellyman 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Not going there would have been a better option.
I don't mind my taxes paying soldiers wages, i would pay more to get them the equipment they needed, instead of lining Haliburton shareholders pockets.
I would also be happy if they just charged for each and every soldier to fly back home to be safe and not pay for the Bush regimes incompetence with their blood.
2007-03-07 23:51:55 · answer #1 · answered by DanRSN 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think your answer will be forthcoming when we finally find out if the recent troop surge has had any significant results. So far, it has had some success - but, and this is a big but, it may be that when faced with an enemy that will actually fight back, the cowardly terrorists are lying low until they can target some more shopping centers filled with women and children.
We'll know soon enough. I believe the terrorists would fold like a house of cards if they were unable to indiscriminately slaughter innocent people and instead had to face a force that was able fight back.
2007-03-07 11:47:14 · answer #2 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Over 3,000 soldiers have already been killed and Bush thinks sending more troops to Iraq will solve the problem? No, sending more troops there mean more deaths and sympathy for the families involved.
2007-03-07 11:40:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Leaving aside that the problem was caused by the invasion, any solution has to be political and with the will of the Iraqis. The so-called insurgents are terrorists and should be treated as such.
Anyway, I understand that both invading countries were advised beforehand that trouble would ensue between the different Muslim factions, but the invasion went ahead... Fancy that, another Middle East religious strife area.
2007-03-07 11:39:16 · answer #4 · answered by Duffer 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
When will the dummies in the west get it.
WE ARE AT WAR
Its sort of low level stuff at present and for every US or UK trooper who becomes a casualty a whole heap of terrorists get wiped out, this is the battlefield for the war on terror or would you rather our soldiers having to fight terrorists in downtown Manhatten or the Strand in London.
We need to send more troops and really get stuck in and not fight with one hand tied behind our backs, remember wars are won by making the aggressor so defeated that even the idea of war is to terrible to contemplate we need to really go to town on them.
If the leftie peace brigade had their way we would only have sent a peace keeping force over to quell Mr Hitler and co. Armies are made for fighting when a tropper joins up it does state that he maybe called upon to fight and be in risk of dying..
Back up our troops with our full support as its these guys that will hold back the rabble that would like to put an end even to this social forum and our way of life in the West.
2007-03-07 12:54:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
No. Sending 300,000 more might, but wait... We don't have that capabiity...
The problem with toppling a dictator is that although Hussein was a war criminal and a nasty guy, he ruled with an iron fist, 3 groups who hate each other...
The current situation was reasonable a postulate even BEFORE the invasion, had we bothered to look beyond the immediate goal. The US has never understood that there are inherent risks of collapsing other governments...
2007-03-07 11:45:49 · answer #6 · answered by doc in dallas 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't know about you, but I would feel a whole hell of a lot better with having an extra 30,000 troops to back me up than none at all. Pulling out troops without quelling the violence will lead us to emergency helicopter lifts of the roofs of buildings, like we did in Saigon at the end of Vietnam.
2007-03-07 11:39:15 · answer #7 · answered by Nicholas P 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Maybe 30,000 more troops will not be able to solve the problems in Iraq, so we should pull every American out and bomb the place until nothing is left alive. Then bomb Iran to death also.
Dead muslims can't hijack airplanes.
Wake up and smell the jihad...
2007-03-07 21:42:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is amazing how many people know all the answers. If you look at history Jews have fought Gentiles, Catholics fought Protestants Muslims fought Christians and Jews, I could go on forever. Guns don't kill people, People kill People. The human race seems incapable of living with and respecting it's neighbour, if we cannot find a different colour or creed to fight then we form gangs and fight each other. Don't blame America or Iran put the blame where it really lies. Human Greed.
2007-03-07 11:48:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You DO understand that there have been recent changes in security priorities and tactics by the forces in Iraq, don't you?
If you think that we're just sending more men without any changes to tactics, then you've been misled by the poor reporting in Big Media, or you've not paid much attention to what is going on.
So, what are your qualifications to be saying this won't work? Because a Dem politician said it?
2007-03-07 11:49:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋