Sending More Troops to Iraq

[DungeonMaster6]

Does any one agree with Bush, that sending more troops to that God-forsaken place is the answer?

[gagged_Louise]

No, definitely not. I've been against that war since day one and expanding the number of troops in this miserable conflict won't help, but I can see that a quick retreat (let's say: no US or UK troops left by end of this year) would guarantee civil war and further massacres. That's what's happening already: the bloodshed is appalling.

I really don't see how Bush is going to be able to find a way forward to this: throwing in more troops won't help and pulling back sharply and telling the Iraqi government to do it themselves: well, the political price in the Senate and in the next elections will be much too high, won't it? *sigh* Not being American, my POV is a side view but I've been following the war on terror since 9/11 and even before with much interest and unease.

[cariad]

I did not like it when the first troops went in, and I do not like the idea of more going in. However, particularly as I have a family member who is frequently out there, I do not like the idea of the troops there being under resourced in terms of manpower. The idea of a rapid withdrawal is unacceptable, in terms of the situation it would leave, and I understand the heightened level of casualties to troops as they do so.

I hope someone, somewhere finds an acceptable answer.

cariad

[MasterRob{cali}]

Well, there is really no reason we need more troops, it means that many more targets. I back all military people that are in harms way, however at the end of this Iran or Syria will have control of Iraq. There is and has been a civil war there. We need to train their troops get out let them take care of them selves.

We cannot be the rescuer of the world, doing so places us in these positions. No one wants to hear this but we are back in another Viet Nam. If the Saudis would take care of their own fears we would have backed them, but they want us to do their work for that oil.
Thank You
MR

[TomOfSweden]

Well, there is really no reason we need more troops, it means that many more targets. I back all military people that are in harms way, however at the end of this Iran or Syria will have control of Iraq. There is and has been a civil war there. We need to train their troops get out let them take care of them selves.

We cannot be the rescuer of the world, doing so places us in these positions. No one wants to hear this but we are back in another Viet Nam. If the Saudis would take care of their own fears we would have backed them, but they want us to do their work for that oil.
Thank You
MR

Was the invasion really the result of trying to save the world? If the invasion would have been officially led by a muslim nation and with a broader coalition, and not stressing into war before the allies are ready, things might have turned out a lot different. I mean, both Germany and France was ready to invade, but not on Bush's terms. This invasion was more the result of Texan machismo, rather than a genuine will to save the world. USA isn't the world police, they're too busy being the kind of the hill rather than having a focus on creating a stable political world.

Bush is a born again Christian. He talks constantly about god. The Arabs know it. He's completly and totaly the wrong guy to lead an invasion of a muslim country. USA is not the land of the free. It's the land of Christianity. Yes, I know the paper says something different. Denying it is just stupid.

My two cents.

[DungeonMaster6]

I recently read a bumper sticker that read: Quagmire accomplished.

That's exactly what we have here. I don't like the idea of sending more of our troops over there, but we can't just pull out either, because the Iraqis are not prepared to defend themselves fully. But there will come a day when they must be. Just last week the Iraqi army was in a battle and asked for assistance from the U.S. We can't abandon them now. Al Qaeda must be dealt with.

But commiting 21,500 more troops is not the way to do it. U.S. forces will be engaged in bloody street fighting that will not resolve the ongoing turmoil and the sectarian and ethnic strife. The anti-American insurgency will not be deterred.

[mkemse]

No, this whole issue started why our President Lied" abou WMD, and please some one correct me if i am wrong, but if my memory is correct, prior to invading Iraq, I believe our leader told us "We go in, do what we need to and we will be out within 90" that was 4plus years ago, it was a mistake to go in, a mistake to stay and I do not believefor 1 second sending inmore troops will solvethe issue, their is a Civil War going on, we have no right ot be their, I do not think thet Mailki Governemnt has the courage to od what it needs to, and as long as we are therethere is no reason for him to do anythin,g IT IS OUR TROOPS dying not his troops only his civilians.
The Unites State as a Nation has to stop "Policeing The World" everytime sometime something happens, we need to starttaking care of our own.
We spend a billoin a month in Iraq if i am not mistaken yet we have disabled and seniors here that can't afford their own medication
The HUGE UPSIDE to all of this is our President only has 1 1/2 more years in office
We can't win in Iraw, we can loose and like Viet Nam, let's with drawl with diginity before our nation hasd none left, we have lost the respect of nations world wide
Lasty Mr Bush will not support governemt funding of Stem Cell research,because as he puts is, "It distroys life" yet he will support the funding of killings of millions of people and 3,000+ service Men and Women of this Great Nation, what is the difference, why will he allow killing in Iraq which will cure nothing yet no support Stem Cell Research to aid milloins here, even Nacy Regan supports stem Cell Research as Did Bill Frist before the November elections both CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS, the will support funding to kill people in Wars but no to save people lives here through research, hello???

[Miraculix]

Hmmmm... he really said "we are out of Iraq in 90 days"?

I thought he meant 9000 days... Because so far its 1400, and counting.

[mkemse]

Yes, when He first announced we would be going into Itaq he said we would be in and out in 90 days not 4 years but 90 days, I am also intrigued by a photo he took 3 months after we invaded when he landed on an Aircraft Carrier, got out of a Fighter Plane in a flight Suit with a big banner across the side that said "Mission Accomplished" would someone please enlighten me as to what mission was accomplish??

[Miraculix]

*thinks carefully... "screw up the nation"?

[Sextoymaker]

*thinks carefully... "screw up the nation"?

Have we not so far?

[DungeonMaster6]

"9/11, WMD's, democracy, completing our mission." These are the reasons Bush has cited for attacking and staying in Iraq.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, there were no wmd's, Iraq has become a democracy, so what then is "our mission"? I have thought from the beginning and I have no reason to change my opinion. Our mission is to control Iraq's oil.

[TomOfSweden]

Stop picking on Bush for the WMD's. It wasn't the only reason and half the known world was prior to it prepared to send troops for the "other reason", (ie Saddam being a total cunt and Iraq being a fascist terrorist state in the worst possible sense).

I still can't understand the amazingly botched diplomacy by USA that caused most of Europe not to send troops. Insulting France and Germany was so amazingly clumsy and unecesary.

[mkemse]

If you look at recent news stories and polls less then 32% of American's support Bush and this now is starting to include people of his own party, Richard Nixon's approval rating was higher prior to his resigning over Watergate then Bush's is now
Why, WMD's was 1 of the Main reason the USA went in EVEN after the Inspectors said there where none or any evidence of there every being any
No WMD's were not the only readon to go it, but they were the reason he gave to us as American Citizens'
I can't not think curently of any Country the USA has NOT allientated over this War, at 1 time we as a Country and were respected World Wide, now outside of British and Tony Blair we have lost all credabilibty in the world, plus, the United States needs to stop Policeing the world everytime a country does not do what WE want them to
We need to take care of Americans, our own people before we help other Nations, hell, what other Country on this planet offered ANY assistance to us after 911?? NONE, I do not remember 1 country on this planet sending in any assitance to us after this tragedy
As the saying goes "If you want your Country completely rebulit and modernized, get into a War with the UNITED STATES, they will rebuild it for you" we always have, we always will
We have money as a Nation to bomd Iraq but we have no money to help our own homeless, or help our seniors afford medication or medicial bills

[TomOfSweden]

We need to take care of Americans, our own people before we help other Nations, hell, what other Country on this planet offered ANY assistance to us after 911?? NONE, I do not remember 1 country on this planet sending in any assitance to us after this tragedy
As the saying goes "If you want your Country completely rebulit and modernized, get into a War with the UNITED STATES, they will rebuild it for you" we always have, we always will
We have money as a Nation to bomd Iraq but we have no money to help our own homeless, or help our seniors afford medication or medicial bills

All countries on the planet offered to send help and USA turned them down. Both after 9/11 and after katrina. Do your homework before whining. USA behaves like they're the king of the hill and doesn't need anyone else, still even now with their huge deficit. But then again nationalistic macho babble seem to turn most US citizens on. I mean why else vote for Bush?

[DungeonMaster6]

The reason France did not support us is because they were getting their oil from Saddam Hussein and they don't want the U.S. controlling Iraq's oil, which I firmly believe has been and still is our mission.

[mkemse]

I agree, especialy considering that the Unites Stes and 2 other countries just signed an "agreement" with Mailki, giving the United States and a couple other countries control over 75% of their Oil, if it ever gets pumped and shipped, but what we have done in Iraq for 4 years is still inexcusable

[MrWonderful]

Is it just a coincidence that Texans got us into Vietnam and Iraq? Probably not. A cowboy mentality just does not work when it comes to foreign policy. At least it hasn't since Teddy Roosevwelt was President.

[gagged_Louise]

As George W Bush went on an official visit to Britain in late 2003 - greeted by a wave of peacefully disapproving rallies - I saw a superb cartoon on the web, in three pic frames:

Bush and Blair are visting the Queen's London residnece and Blair tells Bush "These Buckingham Palace guards never flinch."

Bush whispers to the guard his side of the story: "Saddam had WMD and was gonna use them"

Guard in bear cap breaks into a fit of laughter, and Blair tells Bush "I stand corrected."

I agree with DM that the whole WMD thing has been a hoax, an excuse, and so was the supposed link to al-Qaeda. Saddam was a secular dictator, not a religious one: his regime hunted down people they saw as dangerous islamists/shiites and they would have hanged Osama bin-laden if he had been found in Iraq sometime in the ´90s. And of course there was no question about the US military advantage; who would have doubted that the US would be able to topple Saddam in 90 days at any time after 2000 if only given the room to wage the war full-on? (compare: who would doubt Russia could mow down any of its neighbours if it weren't ultimately checked by any other force, by NATO or by treaties?) But it's one thing to win the war, in military terms, and another to win peace. Bush and Pentagon seem to be doing neither, these days.

[fantassy]

I know this is truly terrible, but I have thought from the beginning that Bush dragged us into war in Iraq is a way to distract the nation from his inability to catch Osama and those really responsible for 9/11. If he hadn't started the war, he wouldn't have been re-elected. Aweful to suspect our commander-in-chief of sacrificing American lives for policial reasons, isn't it?

fantassy

[mkemse]

USA behaves like they're the king of the hill and doesn't need anyone else, still even now with

at time this is correct i did do my homework
I am not whininig, simply stating what i have read and hear, i live in the usa
the reason bush was re-elected is that if anyone reads US history, no President in our entire history has EVER been voted out of office, regardless of their performance when this country has been at War
I appriciate your comments and remarks, the reality is the sooner the US stops bulling other countries around the world and tries to set up other governemns they way WE want them to be, the sooner the USA will stop alienting other countries, outside of England and Tony Blair, name 1 other countryright now that repects the United State,most repect was lost after we invded Iraq, what we should of done was negotiate with Iraq, Iran ect for a settlemnt, as Jim Baker Baker who headed the Iraq think tank said "At times you must negotiate with your enemey's, even Republicans has told our Presdient to talk to Iran, Syria, ect but Mr. Bush says NO
Mr. Bush must alwayshave it his way, and I imagine in 2008 the peole of this GReat Nation I live in will say "Enoughi s Enough" and push republicans out of control all together the Dems may not have proven yet what they can and will do, but the Repubicans over th last 6 years have proven what they wILL NOT do big difference
As I said we need to start taking care of our own people before we police the world
Thanks again for your comments

[TomOfSweden]

no President in our entire history has EVER been voted out of office, regardless of their performance when this country has been at War

This just proves my point. US voters aparently get a hard-on over nationalistic babble, no matter how non-sensicle or dangerous it is.

For the record. I was all for the invasion of Iraq. It's completly beyond me how Bush managed to fuck it up so badly. USA under Bush did absolutely everything wrong.

I still remember the speech Bush held on the aircraft-carrier proclaiming victory and thanking god for helping the US troops win. What kind of a derranged lunatic is he? Did he not understand that the whole Arab world was watching and that he in that instant was pissing every muslim in the face. He did shit like this at every possible chance he got. No, shit that country is in a mess now, and in a religious civil war.

Acting a bit remorseful, drawing atention to and apologising for the civilian deaths might have been a smoother move. But, no. They did nothing of the sort. Not once. They never did. The US high command just assumed they'd be thanked by the Iraqui people no matter what and where completly non-plused when the people they'd just dropped bombs on where in a bad mood. Surprise, surprise.

Saddam wasn't all bad. There was plenty of great things the Baath party did for the Iraqui people, (that the US invaders didn't do). Just because Western media liked to portray him like Adolf Hitler doesn't make it true. I'm not saying he was a good leader, but by just getting rid of him USA doesn't automatically become the friends of the Iraquis and assuming that they would be, (as they did) is just plain derranged.

I don't for the life of me understand how US voters ever thaught it was ok that nearly the whole war was financed by USA. I just don't get it? What was so bad with letting France and Germany make some demands and have them pay for half? Instead Bush thaught it was a better idea to call them coward poopy pants and make sure not to have them on-board. That's just plain retarded.

Hubris is never good.

edit: Almost forgot. When USA took Baghdad and that US soldier put the US flag over the statue of Saddam. I mean, what where they thinking. Granted that it was just the action of one dim witted soldier and not US policy. I'm sure it errased the smiles of many an Iraqui. Liberation turned to occupation in a second. But that pretty much set the tone of what was to come and the high command never once commented it or apologised for it, which would have been the clever thing to do. It's not a about grovelling, only doing the smart thing to keep people happy. Kind words cost US tax payers nothing.

[mkemse]

Also if you look back to Bush's 1st term, he did NOT win the election he did not get a Majority of the votes, the United State Supreme Court put him in office after they had trouble with vote totals in Florida so he did not even win his first term, the office was given to him

[MasterRob{cali}]

Well who’s right whose wrong; don’t mean a thing to the combat person went you are the middle of a firefight. Two things usually run thought your mine. 1) I am not going home face up feet first. 2) My buddy next to me on both sides, I will protect as they will for me.
So here is my lean on this, We USA mainly, which being in over 30 countries with only an artic being only continent haven been to. I wouldn’t ever leave this great country; we have been and done stupid things I admitted this openly. But I know of no other country that any other country that needs help ask first for that help and we give it. Hell even to our enemies go figure huh.
So the USA is in Iraq not as a forces to win the war on terrorism, as the is in Afghanistan
We are there as a mercenary force (UK also) cause the Saudis has no balls to do for them self. They are the ones who are scared and afraid of Saddam. Pure simple fact no one really has though of. I personally think 21000 troops will do nothing to solve this problem. Yes they will help out take a little pressure off the ones who have been there day in day out maybe 2nd tour maybe 3rd. We need to push for training the Iraq’s army, talk to Iran and Syria as they are going to be more or less running Iraq went we do leave. Which means this we have to win is BS, we lost there went three things happen 1st By invading Iraq we fulfilled Osama`s vision that we would invade a muslin oil rich country. 2nd We didn’t have enough troops on ground at first, 3rd was went Bozo (bush) had his picture taken on the carrier saying Mission Accomplish.
So do we need more troops yes 3 years ago went we first went in. Not now, it’s to late and only going to give them more targets to shoot at.
TomofSweden not sure what paper you are reading, but we did accepted money and such from many countries, even Sumatra who gave us 1500 dollars. This would be in the ballpark of a million. But seeing that country was dam near wipe out with the tsunami as an American I though as well as the others 200+ million that was a great thing they gave us. Oh that we did send back, as it wasn’t because we are the best king of the world; it was they needed it more then us. This is another reason Tom we send or do not accept stuff, from countries that really cannot afford to send.
Thank you all for listen to me
Master Rob

[TomOfSweden]

TomofSweden not sure what paper you are reading, but we did accepted money and such from many countries, even Sumatra who gave us 1500 dollars. This would be in the ballpark of a million. But seeing that country was dam near wipe out with the tsunami as an American I though as well as the others 200+ million that was a great thing they gave us. Oh that we did send back, as it wasn’t because we are the best king of the world; it was they needed it more then us. This is another reason Tom we send or do not accept stuff, from countries that really cannot afford to send.
Thank you all for listen to me
Master Rob

Naturally, you know these things better than I do, living in the country. I just know that Sweden and all Scandinavian countries offered lots of money and trained personel to help out in both occasions and where turned down twice. Like most countries we offer our help very fast and get a bit surprised when it's turned down. Funny that USA accepted help from Sumatra and not Sweden.

[cariad]

This is a great discussion which is at times getting very close to getting overly emotive. Please distinguish between fact and opinions and take extra care over how you express your opinions.

Thank you - in other words - play nicely!

cariad

[TomOfSweden]

This is a great discussion which is at times getting very close to getting overly emotive. Please distinguish between fact and opinions and take extra care over how you express your opinions.

Thank you - in other words - play nicely!

cariad

I'm going to go right ahead and feel like the target here and apologise if I miffed anybody. Sorry, in that case. peace and love

[mkemse]

my apologies to anyone offended, my statements an remarks and fact are based on information i heard and read, if i am wrong with any of it and offended anyone I apologize
The facts I listed regarding Bush's 1st Term his being given the Office Of President is a Fact not Fiction, the issue of no Incumbent President being voted out whilewe were or are at war was information I researched on line as well as froma friend who has a PH.D. in US History from the University Of Illinjois, if i missed stated any fact my apologies, i trustthe scources I use,d but as is in life peole can be wrong with their fact and figure.
If was NOT my nitention to get overly emotional. but also keep in mind, being an American Citizen born andraised here, the issues do tend to be more emotional for me then those not residing inthe United States
Again, if any of my facts are incorrect and or I offended anyone my apologies to those offended
Hope everyone has a great 2007 and that the USA is out of Iraq ASAP

[TheDeSade]

Im a Texan and proud of it. I am also pretty liberal in my social views. I have met GWB on a couple of occasions and have never been terribly impressed with either his intellect or his ability.

My opinion goes here :

We were sold a bill of goods about the necessity of a military solution in Iraq. There was no reason to invade this country, there was no reason to stay and there is no good reason to escalate our involvement at this point.

There is no military solution to the problem of international terrorism.

Our biggest and most pressing problem is not Al Queda, Hezbollah or any of the other half dozen self proclaimed radical islamic groups. Our biggest and most pressing problem is the fact that 70% of our domestic oil consumption is dependent on, basically six countries, two of which are admittedly hostile to the United States (Venezuela, Iran) Two of which are on shakey diplomatic grounds (Mexico, Nigeria) and one who, in my opinion is questionable (Saudi Arabia) and one who should be one of our closest allies (Canada). For your information, you can look at the list of the top 15 oil importers to the US here (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...nt/import.html)

Were it not for the economic and societal drain caused by the war in Iran, we would more than likely be posting an excess in the federal budget rather than record deficits.

If Iran and North Korea were not almost positive that the US cannot sustain another major military action in the world, we would be much closer to a diplomatic resolution to the problems in these two countries.

OK . . I could go on . . but I think you get the feel for my stance on the Bush presidency and his brand of diplomacy and leadership.

Climbs down off soapbox and kicks it back under the table.

// RANT OFF//

TDS

[mkemse]

Desade,

thanks for your imput
the other reality is that the country elected Bush in 2004 for 4 more years we arestuck with him til 2008 him for 1 /12 more years no impeachable offenses i have seen but i could be far worse, Cheney could be in charge (as if he isn't already)