Do you think U.S.A.should send more troops to Iraq to win the war?

Question

Like 100, 000 additional troops? Obviously it's going to be a little bit more expensive, but easier to end it (the war) at the same time. What do you think?

By the way, liberal answers (which is synonymous of "stupid answers") like "bring our troops home" or "we shouldn't be over there in the first place" are NOT welcome

Answer 1

Yes indeed! We have already seen positive results from the troop surge that started 2 months ago. Killings in Baghdad have been on the decline, according to military analysts. I believe President Bush made a terrible mistake by sending in only 125,000 troops in the beginning. Back when Bush Sr deployed troops to fight in Operation Desert Storm, we send in 475,000 troops. If we'd have sent in 200,000 troops in March of 2003. We would have had the ability to protect the Iraqi borders, and prevent against the influx of foriegn fighters coming in from Iran and Syria. We should also stop trying to be so politically correct when fighting this war. When insurgents and creeps like Moqtada Al Sadr attack our soldiers, they take refuge in mosques. Because they know that our leaders are reluctant to storm the mosque and kill our enemies, because of the reaction of the larger Muslim community. It is obvious that the Muslim world supports this Jihad against the west. You never see prominent Muslim leaders of the world standing up against this terrorism. Then we have Ahmedinejad in Iran denying the holocaust, and declaring that he will destroy Israel if given the chance. He is moving full steam ahead with his nuclear weapons program, and he has sneered the entire world. The west must stand against these Islamic terrorists. But the Europeans are cowards. The French are the biggest cowards. We've already seen them allow radical Muslim youth to riot and destroy property and businesses in Paris, and they did nothing about it. These radical Muslims are determined to defeat the west, and impose their dogma upon the entire world. The west must defend itself and deal with these barbarians much like they are dealing with us, with no fear of repraisal.

Answer 2

It would not solve anything, it would create false hope for everyone. The only thing it would do is allow us to cover more territory, which would have the exact same effect as what's going on now, except on a larger scale.

Our conflicting motives will never allow us to win this war. On one hand we are trying to find these WMD that are still there and we are also trying to protect the country. How can you destroy something and protect it at the same time? And if everyone is worried about another war starting if we pull out, you can't really stop the inevitable, if it's going to happen, it'll happen, regardless.

So no, sending more troops is not a good idea. At least not until we have a feasible plan.

Answer 3

Under equipped enemies have to be smarter than that.
If too many troops show up, they will go into hiding for the duration.
Leave, let them regroup, bomb group! (1,2,3) same in Afghanistan
America has turned a lot of the moderate decent Muslims into the enemy. The description of America being the eternal teenager is so close. The difference between todays wars and the wars of years ago, was that they fought thinking that one day we will be their friends, this isn't happening anymore.
In previous wars you beat the enemy, but you left them with a drop of pride. If you want to know how to fight a war, fight with your wife, you don't bring out the big guns because you know you will regret it later.
The war will never end the same that all previous wars ended.

Answer 4

is it easier if we send more and more - i wonder.

this is the exact same kind of thought process that we entered into as a nation during vietnam.
war became something to have an ego about.
there was lots of rhetorical questions about wanting to win the war and not much thought about the long term costs or the validity of the cause.

at our peek, we had over 500,000 troops in vietnam and found that it didn't change all that much, because the population didn't support us.

i also find it endlessly fascinating that you don't want to hear from people who don't agree with you...

Answer 5

YES, finally a question that makes any sense.
we need more troop in iraq not just to secure the capital but also to control the boarders. as long as we don't have more troops in iraq to control the borders the insurgency will never end.
people really need to understand that iraq is just a battle ground for us and the jihadies....pulling out of iraq will solve nothing, infact it will only make things worst....if we pull out the insurgents will get bolder in afghanistan and else where.

Answer 6

There is no "winning" this war. The damage that America has caused is completely irreversible. The best-case scenario would be that American completely pulls out of Iraq and a new, less benevolent dictator takes over (the idea of democracy in Iraq at this point is complete folly).

Answer 7

No more troops should go to Iraq.

More troops should leave Iraq.

Increase to our military force and

HUMUNGUS Amounts of $$$$$$$$$$$$ be given to the VA System, over hauling the almost auto denial of benefits for those with mental disorders as a result from over exposure to the war with no plan, no strategy and no chance of winning.

Besides, bush declared he end of the war on the USS Lincoln right?

Answer 8

No I think it is time to pull out. Our troops are between the 2 sides of a civil war. We can't win and we done our best!

Answer 9

by fact there are not from now on troops to be sent out. first element, previously all people tells me that i'm such an ignorant dolt by fact I in simple terms wrote that first line, please study extra down first. 2nd, i'm a Canadian soldier. I even have an intruder's view of the Americna protection tension undertaking because it stands, in spite of the undeniable fact that it is not by fact i'm serving in yet another protection tension that i'm oblivious to the way issues circulate in different countries. i comprehend, i comprehend, there are so lots greater infantrymen in the U. S. forces than are at present deployed in Iraq, yet they are purely element of the yank worldwide dedication. yet to characteristic to this, there is the undeniable fact that infantrymen want relax. you could no longer anticipate troops to function effectively in intense-intensity operations for long intervals. A one-3 hundred and sixty 5 days deployment in Iraq is putting a superb form of tension on each and every soldier obtainable, and that they ought to go on domicile to sit down down back, recuperate and re-prepare. to no longer point out seeing their families, too. That of itself takes tremendously lots a 300 and sixty 5 days. Then, throw in the particular instruction previously deploying. that's yet another 3 hundred and sixty 5 days right there. it could probable be decrease down somewhat, in spite of the undeniable fact that it honestly shouldn't, and then they are returned obtainable. Make no mistake, this could be a grueling operational pace, and once you're making it from now on durable, there heavily isn't a protection tension left in the top.

Answer 10

I think we shouldn't be over there in the first place. Don't send more troops, bring them back home. America has a big problem with thinking "We're #1!" This needs to end, and it needs to end with us realizing we have to bring our troops back.