President Bushs new Iraq strategy

[Dante]

How do you gusy feel about President Bushs new strategy to send an additional 21,500 troops to iraq?

[0=]

I must say Jon Stewart summed it up pretty well when he said the president has finally realized what a "catastrofuck" this is and is sending a bad tip of 15% to Iraq.

[*Dissident*]

Ha ha, i saw that one. yea...uh...I already knew bush was a dumb fuck, it didnt take 21.5k more troops, kthxbai.

[Maverick]

Bush consulted a lot of people so it's not like one day he woke up and said "we're bringing more troops to Iraq" and poof it happened. You shouldn't call someone a dumb fuck when you are in no position to do any better nor know any better.

Leaving too early will only make Iraq worst. I think we can all agree on that. We're still needed in Iraq to stabilize the country and get the government up and running. No one else has come up with another decent strategy so I decided to give his strategy a chance and see where it goes. Leaving Iraq in turmoil will only destabilize the middle east even more. After that we would only have wasted our time. We can't do what's been done so we might as well fix it properly and leave in as much good terms as possible.

[0=]

Wow it's shocking that we may have wasted our time and money. *end sarcasm*

Like I said, it is a mere 15% increase, it will bring troop levels up to where they were a couple years ago; in other words, it won't do shit. We are the ones who destabilized the region in the first place; we have been providing weapons to Israel for years, we gave aid to Saddam in the war between Iraq and Iran, which pissed off just about everyone in Iran, and now we removed the only effective stabilizing force in the region and murdered him. To quote Jon Stewart again, "It's like he was cooking a pot of shit *makes an action showing the president tasting the shit soup then said* 'Eh, needs salt.'"

[Maverick]

We are the ones who destabilized the region in the first place I agree. It just doesn't seem right to leave it like that.

now we removed the only effective stabilizing force in the region and murdered him.

Yes but think all the people he killed.

[0=]

Yes but think of all the people we've killed.

[*Dissident*]

so far, iraq is like a small scale vietnam. in vietnam, we may have lost 50k americans...but we killed over 2 million vietnamese. i iraq, we have lost 3k americans...but 100k iraqis

[mRojas2000]

So you say this war will go on and on for a couple more years?

[*Dissident*]

well, with the new troops...yes. if we started taking OUT troops, slowly, we would eventually have little to no presence there, which is what we need.

[mRojas2000]

Yeah, I didn't think about that... I think there's more than enough people out there in Iraq already to send even more...

[Maverick]

Yes but think of all the people we've killed.
Yeah, I read an article today that the number of Iraqis killed last year was over 30,000 caused by both sides of the war.

We can't just back up our bags and leave. The new government still needs us to get everything stable. We went there and completely changed their government and we have an obligation to stay there because we were the reason we took their leader out of power. What will become of Iraq if we leave too early?

[0=]

It will fall into a full blown civil war slightly sooner than if we stay for 5 more years. You can not destroy the government of a country then replace it like a heart transplant, it's more like performing brain surgery with your eyes closed while you ride an exercise bike and cook a 5 course dinner. It might actually get better, the American troops are the main targets, we aren't welcome.

[Mannequin]

Ooh, well while we know he tries..
the next president is screwed. Sending 20,000 more troops will only make the percentage of deaths lower--probably not so much the number of people.

[0=]

Actually the percentage will rise as he plans to cover a larger area.

[Mannequin]

Heh. Not significantly, if at all.
We kind of "pwn" Muslims and foreign countries, but just not in the right ways.
The deaths won't rise very much percentage wise.

[Maverick]

Iran and Syria are fueling the violence. Stabilizing Iraq (the Bush style way) would require a three way war before significant improvements are made.

[Bankai15]

We may have another Berlin on our hands.

[*Dissident*]

Unfortunatly, I beleive you may be right.

[theonetheycallbob]

Bush consulted a lot of people so it's not like one day he woke up and said "we're bringing more troops to Iraq" and poof it happened. You shouldn't call someone a dumb fuck when you are in no position to do any better nor know any better.

Leaving too early will only make Iraq worst. I think we can all agree on that. We're still needed in Iraq to stabilize the country and get the government up and running. No one else has come up with another decent strategy so I decided to give his strategy a chance and see where it goes. Leaving Iraq in turmoil will only destabilize the middle east even more. After that we would only have wasted our time. We can't do what's been done so we might as well fix it properly and leave in as much good terms as possible.

I agree 50000000%. Leaving Iraq to early or too quick screw things up.

I'm tired of people complaining about it. It's going on, and the president that we (well not we but our parents and guardians) elected is doing what he saw fit. so quit bashing him, and grow up. He may have made a mistake so what??? He's trying to fix it in the best way he see's fit so GET OVER IT!

[serial-thrilla]

I agree 50000000%. Leaving Iraq to early or too quick screw things up.

I'm tired of people complaining about it. It's going on, and the president that we (well not we but our parents and guardians) elected is doing what he saw fit. so quit bashing him, and grow up. He may have made a mistake so what??? He's trying to fix it in the best way he see's fit so GET OVER IT!well some soilders families may not want to see them be sent off to die in some pointless war.

[Maverick]

Of course they wouldn't. Though when you sign up for the military that risk is always there.

[DomSoulWraith]

WARNING!!:IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HERE ME RAMBLE, SKIP TO LAST SENTENCE!!

No, his strategy is to just wait it out and let the next unlucky guy, who's president, fix this, if at all possible. I think he's (Sorry, but after so much bullshit I have to say it) A GOD DAMN IDIOT!! He can barely speak proper English, let alone rule a country. So.... we get back at him by re-electing him! So....... now he's running the world to the ground! We don't need more troops, but we can't pull the rug out from under them now. If it wasn't bad eough now, just wait! Blair is making it so that the democrat's plan will be......., the easiest way to say it is, bad, or mean. well some soilders families may not want to see them be sent off to die in some pointless war.. Not exactly true. It may be stupid, but they did have a plan of action and reason to do it. A lot of people think Saddam was responsible for 9/11. HE WASN"T (he was indirectly and wasn't against it. I think he may have pushed the idea along, but didn't do it so some other extremist Muslim group(Al Quaida) did. He was put to death because he was a God awful dictator.) RESPONSIBLE! I think are military tactics are miserable. The Japaneese were better in WW2 than ours now. I think we've gotten worse. In the WW's, we were the bomb! No one messed with USA! (No I wasn't alive; I like the military channel :lol: ).

Well, no I don't agree to shorten that.

[Ethannnnnn]

it hinks its just stupid sending more troops to iraq for starters its not even a part of america sending more troops there is just stupid