2007-09-13 11:20:49 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If it has helped, why are we bringing 30,000 troops home? If the surge worked, then why wouldn't we leave them there to accomplish the mission they were sent there to accomplish?
Seems like Bush is accepting defeat and wants to bring the troops home before Americans realize that they were sent there for no reason.
Too bad he doesn't know we already realize that...
2007-09-13 11:26:50 · answer #1 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
The bottom line is that the military commander in Iraq gave a report indicating that there has been measurable progress since the surge. The democrat response? "We don't beieve it." No offense, but it's becoming clear that ANY measurable improvements made in Iraq is bad news for democrats, who seem absolutely hell bent on defeat and withdrawl. I thought the idea was to achieve VICTORY in Iraq. But I guess that's just not an option if you're a liberal.
2007-09-13 11:26:40 · answer #2 · answered by ? 5 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Bravo.....i think of each and every American citizen could desire to video exhibit that action picture what can it injury? i individually watched the video the different day my brother had the DVD. there is only to many stuff unexplained and the government, or "whoever" became in touch has many questions they could desire to answer!!! Ummm like each and all the firefighters asserting the flaws approximately each and all the greater beneficial explosions or maybe workers there claiming they heard them too. Are a number of those human beings fairly claiming that the firefighters are idiots? whilst they have been there firsthand. each and every thing is so overwhelming!
2016-12-16 19:21:36 · answer #3 · answered by keeven 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not me. The president is talking about reducing the # of troops in Iraq. What has been accomplished since the surge? It seems like it was a waste of military resources to me. If it worked, we'd be looking at bring the majority of our troops home but we're not.
2007-09-13 11:25:40 · answer #4 · answered by katydid 7 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Not I! Even though the reports are accurate, probably even more accurate than the WMD ones. The problem is not with the reports, or who delivers them, it's the criteria that they now use. They no longer count deaths that happen from the front, shot from the front, blown up from the front, those are counted as murder, and we don't see those reports. They also don't count it if a Sunni kills a Sunni, or Shia kills a Shia or if a Kurd kills a Kurd. The classification of I.E.D.'s has also changed. They death rates have not gotten any better, get the disinformation.
2007-09-13 12:22:28 · answer #5 · answered by rnh1921 1 · 3⤊ 3⤋
if its helping why not keep it ?go ron paul 2008 get everybody the hell out of there and protect the homeland
hey classic 96 I guess well never know with the troops having to be there for the next 20 years - where are the media reports of all the troops who have returned home ? I dont see them . ap -reuters-etc .
2007-09-13 11:24:59 · answer #6 · answered by rooster 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
According to the General and the people I know there it has helped. Surely you don't believe what people say who are not there~People who don't have a clue what Victory means,what the Red,White and Blue stands for,Surely you don't believe them!
2007-09-13 11:30:04 · answer #7 · answered by Classic96 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Without political solutions also, there is no way for the surge to be effective.
2007-09-13 11:28:45 · answer #8 · answered by gone 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I'd believe that the surge made a small improvement in the short-term. I don't think it made any difference in the long-term.
2007-09-13 11:25:06 · answer #9 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
The people living in Iraq--from what they been telling me
2007-09-13 11:25:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋