Will 21,500 extra troops solve the problem in Iraq?

[yo-ho-yo-ho]

By all reports the President is going to send an extra 21,500 troops to Iraq 17,000 of which will be deployed in Baghdad.


Will 21,500 extra troops solve the problem in Iraq?

How much more time should the people give him to turn things around ?


By the end of 2007 we could be looking at between 5,000 and 6,000 dead personnel !!!

 

[crazyforgoofy]

 

[chyam]

No IT WILL NOT! We need to get our butts out of there, you would think that with the way the public feels about this war and how Bush's numbers are so low he would get the message, instead he does the opposite of what most Americans want....I just don't get it, I never have gotten it, we sure as heck would not like anyone coming over here and changing the way we do things, why do we have to be in every countries business, don't we have enough problems on our own soil? As far as terriorists coming over here, well I have thought for along time it should be harder to get into this country and alot harder to stay for any length of time.

 

[eclectics]

Not now it won't. The only time extra troops would have maybe made a difference would have been in the very beginning. Rumsfeld's gross misreading of the Iraqi reaction to our "liberation" pretty much paved the road we are on now.

 

[DawnCt1]

We don't know if it will solve the problems in Iraq but one thing we know for sure; withdrawal will solve absolutely nothing!

 

[marybet]

I just don't see how it could. When Bush started this war he had no idea how to end it. He says we can still win. Win what? We got rid of Saddam, he was the threat they all talked about. And we are still there and the Iraqi's don't want us there. They are fighting each other, look how long our Civil War lasted, and there were only two sides.

I have never understood how killing more soldiers honors the ones who have already died for a lost cause.

As someone on the news said today, Bush looks at the soldiers as numbers, not as individual human beings. He should have to call up every mother and wife of a dead soldier and apologize.

 

[DawnCt1]

I have never understood how killing more soldiers honors the ones who have already died for a lost cause.

As someone on the news said today, Bush looks at the soldiers as numbers, not as individual human beings. He should have to call up every mother and wife of a dead soldier and apologize.

Killing more soldiers doesn't honor the ones who have died; Insuring that the mission, for which they died SUCCEEDS honors them. President Bush does not look at the soldiers as "numbers". He contacts families, he visits the hospitals without the press. He owes no one an apology. Our soldiers, mine included are volunteer soldiers who understand what the job is. Not one of the critics in the media or on this board could get up every morning and do their jobs faced with the continuous cacaphony of criticism that he faces on a daily basis. I can't help think that a LOT of people would be seriously disappointed if the president plans succeed. The hatred for President Bush is greater than the success of the mission.

 

[eclectics]

Not one of the critics in the media or on this board could get up every morning and do their jobs faced with the continuous cacaphony of criticism that he faces on a daily basis.

Perhaps President Clinton might just have a slight idea what it feels like.

 

[C.Ann]

Not one of the critics in the media or on this board could get up every morning and do their jobs faced with the continuous cacaphony of criticism that he faces on a daily basis.

------------------------------

Can't help but wonder how you could possibly know this to be a fact..

 

[chris1gill]

Nope, won't solve the problem.... Maybe if you put in 100K or maybe 150K, that would solve the problem, but then again, we don't have that many active personnel that can take on that big task... so there you go, I guess the Rumsfeldian policy of going in lean and mean didn't work so well afterall....

 

[DawnCt1]

Perhaps President Clinton might just have a slight idea what it feels like.

While the media reported on the individual scandals, they were in LOVE with Clinton and were overall, very friendly, when compared to the treatment that President Bush gets. Journalists overwhelmingly vote democratic and this bias clearly influences not just what news they report but the manner in which they report it.

 

[eclectics]

While the media reported on the individual scandals, they were in LOVE with Clinton and were overall, very friendly, when compared to the treatment that President Bush gets. Journalists overwhelmingly vote democratic and this bias clearly influences not just what news they report but the manner in which they report it.

All I can say Dawn, is that you are painting with a pretty wide brush this evening.

 

[salmoneous]

We don't know if it will solve the problems in Iraq but one thing we know for sure; withdrawal will solve absolutely nothing!

Well, other than the whole "stop our soldiers from dying thing". To me, that's really important.

 

[salmoneous]

Insuring that the mission, for which they died SUCCEEDS honors them.

The solders accomplished their mission more than 3 years ago. Saddam was removed. The threat of WMD was eliminated. Iraq was brought in compliance with UN resolutions. It's all long accomplished. What are we still doing there?

What is the mission of the solders that are there now, and the new ones being sent (including those being pulled from the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan)? Can anyone who supports this escalation fill in the blank in this sentence - can George Bush:

The solders being sent to Iraq will accomplish <defined measurable result> and that is worth all the lives it will cost.

I can't help think that a LOT of people would be seriously disappointed if the president plans succeed. The hatred for President Bush is greater than the success of the mission.

You are so wrong. It is amazing what evil you think lurks in the hearts of your fellow Americans.

 

[DawnCt1]

------------------------------

Can't help but wonder how you could possibly know this to be a fact..

I haven't noticed that they are running for president, have you?

 

[DawnCt1]

All I can say Dawn, is that you are painting with a pretty wide brush this evening.

Perhaps you should read Bernard Goldberg's book, Bias. He details and documents quite accurately.

 

[DawnCt1]

Nope, won't solve the problem.... Maybe if you put in 100K or maybe 150K, that would solve the problem, but then again, we don't have that many active personnel that can take on that big task... so there you go, I guess the Rumsfeldian policy of going in lean and mean didn't work so well afterall....

We certainly do have that number of troops and they could be mobilized if that were needed. Frankly, I think more would be a great idea. I would lovel to see 100K sent in. There are between 450,000 and 500,000 active army troops, the same number for the national guard and reserves. The Marine corp with their reserve units, 120,000. In addition to Navy and Air Force have each about 275,000.

 

[eclectics]

Perhaps you should read Bernard Goldberg's book, Bias. He details and documents quite accurately.

I'm already reading a book of fiction.

 

[salmoneous]

We certainly do have that number of troops and they could be mobilized if that were needed. Frankly, I think more would be a great idea. I would lovel to see 100K sent in. There are between 450,000 and 500,000 active army troops, the same number for the national guard and reserves. The Marine corp with their reserve units, 120,000. In addition to Navy and Air Force have each about 275,000.

But how many of those are "close combat soldier" - the folks trained for the type of work needed for this mission? According to at least one retired General - there are less than 100k total in the entire armed forced. So who are these soldiers you want to send in, and what mission are they trained for??

In seems to me that if there really are hundreds of thousands of troops that can be sent to Iraq, then the decision to get troops for Iraq by pulling troops out of the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan is one of the stupidest things we've done in this war (and that's saying a lot!).

 

[DawnCt1]

But how many of those are "close combat soldier" - the folks trained for the type of work needed for this mission? According to at least one retired General - there are less than 100k total in the entire armed forced. So who are these soldiers you want to send in, and what mission are they trained for??

In seems to me that if there really are hundreds of thousands of troops that can be sent to Iraq, then the decision to get troops for Iraq by pulling troops out of the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan is one of the stupidest things we've done in this war (and that's saying a lot!).

20% of those numbers are combat soldiers. 80% are support. "beans and bullets".