http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070910/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
2007-09-10 08:25:32 · 13 answers · asked by Think Richly™ 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
There's already been about that many US troops flown out of Iraq and into various E.U. bases in bodybags. Unofficially of course.
As for the rest of the surge, my sources still in theatre tell me that the brave US troops have secured a couple of market's and paid off the Sunni Insurgents. The City of Baghdad does not remotely resemble a free city. There are roadblocks and segragation walls have turned that city into a prison. The Shia supporters of Sahdr have a self imposed cessation of hostilities. Alqueda in Iraq are actually members of the security services who's main task is to create separatist unrest so that the USA can legitimately claim that they are still needed in the country. (Look up P2OG and NOT on wikipedia!)
The US have largely completed the huge bases their and now with the Sadr army in self imposed cessation, the Sunni's paid off and bribed with American weaponry, and the population of Baghdad mostly dead or displaced, or imprisoned in their locked down neighbourhoods, of course so many attacks have been reduced. This is not a permanent situation, but a lull that can be "sold" as a false bill of goods.
So we have a reducing number of attacks, at what cost? They had to destroy Baghdad to try to save it? Petraeus shows a graph of diminishing Iraqi's dead, but if there is a rapidly deminishing population, doesn't that mean that they are running out of people to kill? The locals do not feel the situation in Iraq has improved at all!
The US is now cosying up to the Sunnis and Alqueda to lay the ground work for attacking Iran.
2007-09-10 10:43:34 · answer #1 · answered by kenhallonthenet 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If it took 600,000 troops to get Hussein out of Kuwait why do people feel it will only take 150,000 to secure a country for the long term ? Get used the the fact that we may never leave. I wouldn't be surprised if 30,000 leave the violence will rise again.
Once again the US is thinking in short term finite numbers in a way to make us feel comfortable. Their telling us to put the focus on Petraeus, not the war. Don't fall for it.
2007-09-10 08:50:10 · answer #2 · answered by cjgt2 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. He certainly had some encouraging information. And for the 1st time a time line substitute into given for a draw down. i will inform you what's extra encouraging. In my employer, I even have lots of dealings with the pentagon and opportunities to speak with extreme score officers stationed there. Petraeus is the 1st commander in Iraq that all of the officers on the pentagon talk of especially. In candid comments, maximum of them agreed that Petraeus' predecessor substitute right into a knucklehead.
2016-10-10 07:56:53 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have complete trust in General Petraeus expertise in these manners. Highly respected general and IN Iraq. Who am I to disagree. He's the professional. If we can't trust our military leaders, we might just as well turn the running of any war to Congress. They have all the answers too.
2007-09-10 08:46:53 · answer #4 · answered by SgtMoto 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
look man no matter how many troops you have over there you can not fight this war with tanks it must be fought with politics the military cannot do much more then just stall the fighting the real issue is Iraqi's will not get behind the US military like they will the Iraqi military this war needs a greater and better Political Civilian agenda.
2007-09-10 08:30:36 · answer #5 · answered by Commodevil 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
We need to pull all troops out ASAP. Occupying a country during a civil war is never a good option. If our president had the slightest clue about history we wouldn't be in this mess.
2007-09-10 08:37:41 · answer #6 · answered by GENE 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Every single liberal democrat in Congress will disagree with Patraeus. They prepared their disagreements prior to him even giving his report.
2007-09-11 04:26:28 · answer #7 · answered by Michael H 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why should you give a *****!!! there's always gonna be troops in Iraq. You civilains forget that there are U.S. soldiers still in Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Somalia. You civilians piss me off when you do that
2007-09-10 08:30:07 · answer #8 · answered by James the Just 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
There should be no timetables. He is falsely setting fake timetables. What if things get worse and president Bush has to send more troops?
2007-09-10 08:29:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Let's get it over with .
We have our boys over there to get killed ......for WHAT ??
I'd say , get all of them back home and drop the A bom over there ...that will take care of all the problems.
2007-09-10 08:41:51 · answer #10 · answered by superwoman 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋