http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070126/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq Robert Gates claims that the lack of support amongst the senate on the issue of the troop increase is a means of emboldening the enemy. I happen to agree with our secretary of defense. What say you? Is it good for the American wareffort for many to not want to send more troops?
Will it help anything to send more troops? Will it change anything, fundamentally? No, it will be same old same old. What's more, the US has tried this approach before. Remember Vietnam, anybody?
There is no support for Bush's war at all. Of course an escalation is opposed. The Iraqi people are not our enemy, and the jihadists would love more targets, especially green recruits.
Depends on whose fundamentalism you're partial to. If it's the same old same old fundiness you think it is, then it probably isn't going to be working for you. Remember Einstein's Cosmological Constant? His "greatest mistake"? My, how time changes perceptions.
You're definitely constant. Inbreds seem to prefer it that way. Always gotta subscribe to the "same old same old". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Adding 20,000 more targets doesn't embolden the enemy? If you make a bad strategy you don't just add to it and hope it works. The USSR did the same thing in Afghanistan. We have no reason to believe Bush's 'strategy' will work. We haven't seen success, except getting Saddam's head on a platter. Easy frills there. The voters made it clear they were not satisfied with the administration's war on Iraq and how it is going. Keep on bucking public opinion Republicans! Keep it up! President Clinton can only be emboldened by this.
Yeah. Pres. Johnson, a Democrat. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What about us Independents? We don't think much of your public opinion on the matter either. Buck that -- in your dreams.
You would have referred to LBJ as a pussy for NOT destroying Vietnam had it happened that way. So which is it? Clinton was a wimp (according to the Armchair Warrior Committee) for not starting/enhancing wars sooner, regardless of NO public support. LBJ DOES rip into SE Asia killing 3 million people and you oppose that too?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! HYPOCRITE
Evading Game already? So? Which is it? Clinton shoulda started/enhanced some military action but sided with public opinion and gets Mr G's trembling finger admonishment and LBJ made sure Vietnam was a major war claiming millions of lives and HE gets your trembling finger admonishment. Look up "consistency."
Actually: It's quite clear that troop increases -do- work. When it is a matter of being spread too thin, adding more butter to the toast is the best way to go. 20,000 more "targets"? No: You forget that these people aren't killing Americans. They target women and children.
I don't think the problem is even with sending more troops to Iraq temporarily, but it doesn't seem like Bush had described any change in strategy. Are these new troops to be deployed with Iraqis? Can we trust the Iraqi troops to be loyal to a national instead of a sectarian cause? How can the Iraqis maintain security when those troops eventally leave? How long will they be there? The Iraq study group suggested aggressive diplomatic initiatives, what's going on with that? Americans have every reason to be pessimistic, to resist spending even more than the projected $2 trillion dollars, more than 3,000 soldiers, and 20,000 wounded. I realize that domestic opposition to a greater commitment in Iraq doesn't help the struggle for Iraq. It would be ideal if we were to commit 200,000 more troops, and trillions more dollars, as long as we could sustain it, but we can't. The limits to achieving peace in Iraq are many. The senate is sending a message of opposition to the president's ineptitude and misjudgement. It can't prevent the troops from going, and most Iraqis are already opposed to our presence there. Because none of the operations conducted by U.S. and Iraqi military forces are fundamentally changing the conditions encouraging the sectarian violence, U.S. forces seem to be caught in a mission that has no foreseeable end... If Iraqis continue to perceive Americans as representing an occupying force, the United States could become its own worst enemy in a land it liberated from tyranny... The United States must make it clear to the Iraqi government that the United States could carry out its plans, including planned redeployments, even if Iraq does not implement its planned changes. America’s other security needs and the future of our military cannot be made hostage to the actions or inactions of the Iraqi government... The Iraq Study Group Report
Spidergoat: Yes. That was one of the main ideas of his plan. To help keep the Iraqi government up to snuff.
Many of those Iraqi troops are unreliable, do you really want your soldiers serving with them? Some are even infiltrators. We have been hesitant to give them the weapons they need, since they can use them in sectarian violence. Are you prepared to potentially enable ethnic cleansing?
This troop surge is part of a larger plan. Another part is to cut off funding for insurgents by strarving Iran of oil money. Noticed the lower prices at the pump lately? Even if it wasn't part of a larger plan, simply deploying more troops should help stabilize things. It sure as hell will help a lot more than pulling out, as many of you are suggesting.
Frankly, I am not morally outraged by "ethnic cleansing" in this instance. However, those found to betray their duties should be shot dead publically. Law and order must be secured.
