war does Bush not get?
He never sent in enough troops from the start, not one of his "surges" over the duration of the war have come close to getting US ground troops to 300,000, & his now most famous "surge" still doesn't get US troops in Iraq to 300,000. What the f**k is the point of fighting a war when you don't have enough troops?
2007-05-08 06:56:48 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
He didn't care about winning there.. he just wanted to get there, kill Sadam and start working on his oil while the whole time his friends can make money war profiteering... It just gets more obvious every time you look at it. He has no intersest in the situation. He just wants more money.
2007-05-08 07:02:34 · answer #1 · answered by bs b 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, this is new.
Someone complaining about not enough troops being sent.
I thought you were all ticked off about too many being there?
Do you know how much crap he would get if he had sent 300,000 soldiers to Iraq? The Democrats would have a field day.
2007-05-08 07:06:02 · answer #2 · answered by Emma 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The point of fighting a war when you lack the resources to easily win it is to delay defeat until you can acquire the resources, or the enemy becomes sufficiently demoralized the cease hostilities.
That the coalition and the insurgency are both in that position in Iraq is a little ironic.
2007-05-08 07:13:28 · answer #3 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
pondering Saddam could not administration the borders of Iraq with one million infantrymen how could the individuals with one million/2 that quantity. comparable bunch have been sneaking weapons for the time of then as now, in basic terms distinction we hear of their assaults now. ok countless the weapons have been been introduced in via the CIA and Mossad for use on the Iraqi human beings. I do keep in mind some explosions suggested in Baghdad till now the conflict focused at civilians purely weren't on Fox information are any information enterprise 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.
2016-12-11 03:52:09 · answer #4 · answered by wintz 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm no expert but i believe that if we had gone in with 300,000 from the start we'd be gone by now. Bush shot himself in the foot by listening to Rummy, and at the time Libs would've went with that number.
2007-05-08 07:24:57 · answer #5 · answered by the 2nd woody 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
when you include contract security, such as blackwater and others, the numbers rise from 160,000 to well over 240,000. simply stated when "experts" say we don't have the troops, we don't have the troops. note the extension of tours of duty as proof.
2007-05-08 07:07:53 · answer #6 · answered by bilez1 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
with an attitude like yours there will be no winners in this war.... it is a lost cause allready, and quite frankly our countries (i'm from England) have embarrassed ourselves quite enough, we should still keep troups there, but only to hold the peace untill a solution arises. moron.
2007-05-08 07:03:27 · answer #7 · answered by Aled H 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why did the libs get upset when he sent more troops? He just didn't send enough to die to make the liberals happy?
2007-05-08 07:02:11 · answer #8 · answered by NONAME 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If he would have sent that many troops, the Liberals would have had a FIT!
2007-05-08 07:01:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
The lessons of Vietnam were not learned.
2007-05-08 07:05:10 · answer #10 · answered by beren 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋