How do we fix the mistake of sending "too few Troops" .. In an election year?

Question

As I see it, we have sent too, few troops; (allbeit, not knowing what type of enemeys were to come)...."truth is; In my opinoion we should have sent many more troops to Iraq.... But no-one really believed that these destroyers of liberty were so strong..... actually they're week, but I think we weeken our Troops Strength with silly "vote for me" forced stratrgies " by non military electorates whom are not honest.... But that are supposed to protect the people" .... And Our Leader and Commander, who is often cow-towing to their wants...which only hurts our soldiers and undermines his office)

Also, I must say that a certain amount of diplomacy and tact must be utilized by any acting President....

But, It is that office's highest duty is to serve and protect the People of these "United States".... I hope The Honorable President refuses to cow-tow to the right or left wing and puts forth a protectionist attitude...What do You Think? I'm Voting For FRED..... Who do you support

Answer 1

I think that (if we have to be in this war)we should have enough troops to kick some bad guy butts

Answer 2

Perhaps you could use more Artillery, Cruise missiles and air dropped bombs to make up the difference. If Fallujah gives you trouble, eliminate Fallujah, or Ramahdi or Baquouba etc.
I'm voting for McCain. Fred is OK but he only played a Sailor on "Flight of the Intruder", McCain was really there.
Whatever is to be done, it should be done soon, America looks like it will be dumb enough to elect a Democrat next fall and that means support for America's enemies.

Answer 3

Bottom line, the "surge has made the violence shift around but total casualties have increased in proportion.

It has been recognized for quite some time that there is not and never was a military solution.

The nation building experiment has produced a bunch of thieves busily socking away as much money as they can steal. There is no indication that anything is going to change. The longer we wait to pull out the higher the cost in lives and funds. If we pull out today or in a hundred years, there will be a blood bath.

And all for what?

So W. doesn't have to admit that he didn't know what he was doing and has never has a clear plan with realistic goals. Only one goal has been met, the stealing of $billions.

Answer 4

I agree: Bush is doing an unpopular task, but he knows that Muslims think it is a victory from Allah if they are not completely destroyed in battle. The Koran says Alla will deliver them into your hands. The only reason Eurpoe is not Muslim today is Charles Martell killed an extimated 300,000 in the battle of Tours.

McCain says if we pull out, it will be more deaths in the future--He's right, too!

Islam is described in Bible prophecy and their leader (Allah is Satan) is called Destroyer in two languages.

See www.revelado.org/islam.htm

Shalom, peace in Jesus, Ben Yeshua

Answer 5

Numbers don't count for squat if your not allowed to shoot. Our troops are literally looking at the enemy face to face and are not allowed to fire on them because of the dumb *** rules of engagement. So they basically have to wait till one of their gets popped in the head before they return fire and as always the insurgents will make a run for a crowded area and people will get hit in the crossfire and the media will be all over it calling the US troops murderers and people who have no knowledge of warfare will be like "WTF!? why did they shoot civilians!?" ans start saying the government should do this and than even though they have no idea on what is really going on and in the end just saying "Damit none of this would have happened if it wasn't for Bush!"

Answer 6

I wonder whether things have been thought through that much with the war.
What were the goals again?