COMMENTS:
Voted : Probably ill conceived and pointless like the entire war
I think we SHOULD go if we can help - We owe it to the Iraqis and to our own legacy now to help this end peacefully, even if our being there is just for lies, we can't change our dirty past.
But look at how our strategy's worked out so far.. will we do a lot better, will we get it right this time? or just cost our children a few more billions for what's a bigger mess every day?
by Jyl on Sun Jan 14, 07 1:53pm
[+]
Voted : Won't make any difference
It wouldn't do any permanent good, many Iraqis don't want us there, and Iraqis need to solve their own problems. If they became more dependant on (and resentful of) us, that would not be good.
Voted : Probably ill conceived and pointless like the entire war
Modern war, micromanaged by men without concept of modern war.
Voted : Won't make any difference
The overwhelming majority of military leaders agree that 21,500 troops will not be enough to provide for the security of Iraq and thus this increase is pointless and will not accomplish anything.Many pundits have dubed Bush's plan "cut and blaim",they reason that Bush is fully aware that his plan with not work and is going through with it inorder to make it look like the U.S has exhausted all efforts and now must leave the security of Iraq to the Iraqis.
Doing more of something stupid doesn't make it smart.
Oddly enough not too long ago the Democraps were calling for more troops. Now that their request if being granted they decided they want less.
Voted : Probably ill conceived and pointless like the entire war
21,500 troops is a drop in the proverbial bucket when you take into account it amount to 5,372 troops in the "battle arena" at any given time...I remember before the presidential election we were suppose to be training Iraqis to "handle their business" so if things are going the wrong way since then it's a foregone conclusion it's not going to work...you can't ram democracy down their throats...they were not in a "democratic mode" until one U.S. President kept changing exactly why we were in that Country since no threat to this country existed and to avoid looking foolish the mission seemed to change...from WMD's to Fighting terrorists who suddenly did not have to cross the ocean to fight the U.S. to Nation building in a Nation that was not planning on doing it as they had not evolved to that point just like most of their neighbors in that region...
Voted : All of the above
I don't think sending such a small number of extra troops will make any difference. I think the US should withdraw completely out of Iraq and let Iraqis take their country back. As Corrupt said, there is a undercurrent of "cut and blame" in the rhetoric out of Washington. It's like they're saying - It's not the US's fault there's a civil war in Iraq, it's everybody else's fault, notably the Iraqis. - But if the US hadn't invaded Iraq in the first place on false pretenses of possessing WMDs and being a threat to the US, if they hadn't destroyed its infrastructure, disbanded its military, and dismissed all functioning parts of its government, then there probably wouldn't be a civil war in Iraq. It's not because Iraq refuses to embrace democracy when they're given a chance, it's because what they have there is nowhere close to democracy, it's pure chaos - you don't move from a stable oppressive dictatorship to a democracy overnight - it takes decades of internal growth to evolve to that level. If the US left Iraq tomorrow, things could not be worse for the Iraqis then if the US stayed. On the other hand, things could get much worse for the US mostly in the Middle East but also internationally if they left - so of course they say they have to stay. I don't think they have the intention of doing any good to anyone except themselves.
The Democrats weren't ever calling for a surge in troops. Since the start of the Iraq War, the only people who have called for more troops are Republishits and neocon cowards.
It's too hot in Iraq. I wouldn't want to go there.
|
