or should we pull all our troops out and let the the people do as they have alway done. That is to fight among themselves. Why should the USA get in the middle of it?
2007-03-16 06:41:16 · 8 answers · asked by sparks 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
If it facilitates getting out, then yes, give him the troops. If not, then it's better, in my opinion, to get out.
The United States should not have gotten in the middle of it when we did. While people were oppressed, and being killed, Iraq was hardly the only place where that has happened in the past twenty years. Compared to some leaders, Saddam was a second-rate oppressor and killer of his citizens.
The United States didn't interfere in any of those other countries by sending troops - why Iraq? And why do it when the military force could have been used to clean up Afghanistan?
2007-03-16 06:59:37 · answer #1 · answered by Peter E 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
As long as there is a good, detailed, plan on what to do with the troops. And also as long as there are military targets that troops can be effective against.
The problem is that if we're fighting insurgents that are mixed with civilians, then the troops we send will just be sitting targets.
Troops are great for real military action, like the two actual Iraq wars against Saddam's troop, where we kicked butt. But for the mixed civilian operations, troops may be the wrong tool.
2007-03-16 06:52:15 · answer #2 · answered by Julian A 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Obama is employing the Bush timeline for the pullout. specific they're going to nevertheless rotate human beings into Iraq somebody has to alleviate the troops that are on the top of thier deployments. close to the top, they'd make some instruments enhance thier deployment for a pair of months, fairly than set up a clean unit for only 2 or 3 months.
2016-10-01 00:42:30 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hell yeah the General should get anything he needs to complete the mission. If the government would have listened more to the Generals over the last few years I think things would have been a little different. If the people in the government want to make military decisions the they should put on a uniform, work the way up the ranks to General then they could be allowed to make military decisions.
2007-03-16 07:27:08 · answer #4 · answered by need4speedsc 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes he should. And even more if needed.
Why? because the difference between victory and defeat is like the difference between North Korea and South Korea. In the South they might not love the US, but they will die in your defence if necessary (and have done so in the past)
In the North the same people, brainwashed from childhood, will die trying to murder you. And nothing you can do will change that, not any amount of food aid, not even complete surrender. That is the effect of losing.
Why should the US be involved? Because all free men are brothers, and it is not done to abandon someone into the hands of slavery (be it religious or secular based) - just because their skin is slightly darker.
2007-03-16 06:52:38 · answer #5 · answered by cp_scipiom 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely. We should listen more to the people who are over there fighting and less to the media.
2007-03-16 06:46:39 · answer #6 · answered by Land Warrior 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes, do it and giter done
2007-03-16 06:48:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Y E S!!!!!!
2007-03-16 12:27:02 · answer #8 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋