what do you think about president bush sending more troops in iraq?
818731
Its what needs to be down to secure Iraq, but it wont happen because the American people as a whole don't want to be in Iraq.  Americans see Iraq as another Vietnam, but Iraq can't be won unless we see the middle east as we once saw the wild west.
451996
Our troops need to come back state side and be with their families. The troops serve only the bank accounts of the wealthy oil companies. They are killed for no good reason. Bush needs to get his head out his daddy and his daddies friends arses. BRING OUR PEOPLE HOME! NOT IN BODY BAGS!
700063
i think that he has done enough alredy..it doesnt matter anymore.. we're used to his stupid mistakes..iraq has turned into another Taliban because of him ..  you cant tell what is he gonna do next..you cant expect his stupid plans...
852511
Obviously you have valuable experience that would help in the current conflict.\n\nUS troops should be open to hearing other perspectives.\n\nHowever, the real problem is NOT with the troops, it's with the President who put them in Iraq in the first place, and who fails to give them the support to do their job right.\n\nIt's the President who really should have listened to the other countries in the UN years ago, who said give the weapons inspectors time to do their job. But no, he had to invade, and there were no wmds.\n\nPlease don't blame the US troops - they are doing the best they can under the circumstances. Blame the Americans for electing Bush again, and blame bush for not listening to the experience of other countries.\n\nNow that we have voted in a Democratic congress and senate, things will change rapidly.
553524
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have lately been touting three sets of statistics to justify their claims of great progress in Iraq. First, they say, we've trained 100,000 Iraqi security forces. Second, 31 other countries are contributing troops as part of the vast international coalition. Third, Iraqi reconstruction is moving along on schedule, thanks to the $18.4 billion in U.S. economic aid.\n\nYet the U.S. State Department's most recent Iraq Weekly Status Report, dated Oct. 6, reveals that all three of those claims are either false or so misleading that they might as well be.\n\nFirst, it's true there are 100,000 Iraqi security forces, about three-quarters of whom are police, army troops or National Guardsmen. But that falls far short of the 272,000 forces that the report calculates are required. (For a breakdown of how many trained security forces exist and how many are needed, by category, click here.) \nSecond, about those 31 coalition members: All told, according to the report, they're contributing about 24,000 troops. The British alone are supplying about 8,000. So the remaining 30 countries have a total of 16,000 troops in Iraq—an average of just over 500 troops per country. The United States has about 130,000 troops over there—more than five times as many as all the other 31 countries combined. (For a full list of the countries involved—which include such powerhouses as Albania, Azerbaijan, and Tonga—click here.) This is not a coalition in the recognized sense of that word.\n\nCompare those figures with these: During the 1991 Gulf War (according to U.S. Central Command's official history of that conflict), 37 other nations took part, sending a total of 270,000 armed forces, flying 30,000 air sorties, and suffering one-third of combat fatalities. Among the nations sending at least one army division were Egypt and Syria. Now that's a coalition.*\n\nMore damning are the report's figures on Iraqi reconstruction. Yes, the U.S. Congress has appropriated $18.4 billion for this effort; but, according to the report, the authorities on the ground in Iraq have spent just $1.3 billion—about 7 percent of the money set aside.\n\nThe specifics of this disparity are still more depressing. For security and law enforcement, $3.2 billion was appropriated, but only $646 million has been spent. For electricity, $5.4 billion was appropriated, $330 million spent. For water resources and sanitation, $4.2 billion was appropriated, a pathetic $23 million spent. For oil infrastructure, $1.7 billion was appropriated, just $47 million spent. For justice, public safety and civil society, $1 billion was appropriated, $55 million spent. For health care, $786 million was appropriated, but $4 million spent. For transportation and communication, $500 million was appropriated, $12 million spent. And the list goes on.\n\nAlthough the State Department issued this report, you will not find it—or its weekly updates—on the State Department's Web site. Nor will you find it on the site of the Agency for International Development (though AID does have a similar report, with far vaguer and rosier figures). Instead, you'll find it on the Web site of the U.S. Commerce Department's Iraq Investment and Reconstruction Task Force—in short, on a site for businesses that need to know what's really happening over there. \n\nWhat's really happening—in numbers as clear as day—is that the training of security forces is proceeding way too slowly, the coalition is a misnomer, and reconstruction has barely got off the ground.\n\nCorrection, Oct. 8, 2004: The piece originally misstated the number of non-U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War coalition. It originally said that the non-U.S. coalition partners sent "a total of 800,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, as well as 300 combat support battalions, over 225 naval vessels, and 2,800 fixed-wing aircraft. Those aircraft flew 112,000 sorties and droppe
491888
Yes, I do think that the troops have died fro nothing and Bush is still sending people to their deaths just to save his pride. If this is such an awesome effort and noble cause, why doesn't he send his little daughters out there? Douchebag.
668974
Do you know anything about terror.... how long it takes them to plan an attack... it took 9-11 six years to plan... it just doesn't happen overnight... \n\nHere are Bush's priorities: \n\nThe number of American troops serving in Afghanistan, currently about 19,000 in 2005, so it's probably less now (according to the DOD http://www.defenselink.mil/news/dec2005/...\n\nIn Iraq we have 133,000 troops (according to a recent reuters story\nhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060523/ts_n... )\n\nSo we have 19,000 troops fighting terror... THAT'S IT... yeah... he's doing great... there are no al-Quida links to Iraq....
360284
Not in the immediate future because spending on defense is at an all time high. Once the spending in Iraq subsides the US government will have to find another way to boost defense spending and what greater way then with a 10-year campaign in Iran. I don't think we'll see troops in Iran for 4 - 5 years.
879747
Given that Bush has agreed to a speedy withdraw, I think its going to be a combo of Go Long and Home.\n\nHome -  a huge number of troops will finally come home.\nLong - I believe there will be US presence for a long time.  One is to help transition(there would be even more chaos w/o US forces).  Secondly, establish a US base like Okinawa, Frankfurt and many others around the world.\n\nI would've voted not to go there in the first place.  Since we're in this mess, I would have to vote for the Home (withdraw large numbers and keep some there until Iraq is able to manage things).
757206
It's one option being looked at. My own view is that the war was a mistake in the first place, but having invaded, we now have a moral responsibility to the people of Iraq to leave them a stable government with a chance at lasting peace. I hate that people are dying there, and wish it could all stop today, but it won't, no matter what we do. And if sending more troops now will give Iraq a better chance of having long term peace, I think we should do it. I don't know what the best answer is, but hopefully if we put the decision making process in the hands of people who are open to ideas rather than political hacks (a la Rumsfeld) we can come up with something.
736201
No. He'll find some reason or another to stay. (Can't forget that oil). Again, Bush is in quite a bit of trouble right now. Remember, The US took a large number of young Iraqis to "train" for security purposes. Many of them went to Jordan. The streets are not secure and it will take a while for them to become secure. I don't believe this "westernized" method of training is doing any good in Iraq. In that respect, I believe Maliki has other plans to provide security.  Even if it means "using" al Sadr.and Iran. And Syria.
448581
I do! No doubt about it!!! I was mad at him when I heard that he denied our troops to come home after these last 4 years! He's only thinking of himself.. I really feel sorry for our troops...they need to be home with their families and not end up dying and never seen again! And yet he keeps sending more of our troops out there? What a turd!
387048
We ARE NOT ready for a war with Iran.  Bush is sick in the brain and has no idea how to run this country.  He keeps wanting to go to war with all of these countries, some body is going to drop a bomb on us before its over with.  Unless he starts a draft( which I think is coming real soon! ) there are no troops left to send!  Its pitiful.
13816
I think that Iraq was on Mr. Bush's mind the day he took office.  On day one he put a target on Saddam's head and was ready to use any excuse to finish his daddy's job.\n\nHis father, however, knew the consequeces of a march on Bahgdad.  That is why we stopped short of Saddam in 91, we had a clean victory and Sr. quit while he was ahead.\n\nJr., however, wanted blood.  He was convinced that Saddam would one day become the next great tyrant.  Like Johnson in 64, Bush was ready to pounce at the first sign of any agression.  The perfect reason to declare open-ended war fell into his lap on an early september monday morning.\n\nIt has been reported that just hours after the planes hit Bush was heard asking his advisors if Iraq was involved.  He was asking very leading questions of his advisors, including donald rumsfeld, who both wanted to pin 9/11 on Saddam before the towers even hit the ground.\n\nBut some would say they were smart, they went for the easy win first.  They needed to prove to the public that America could lead a successful nation-building war.  Of course I wouldn't call Afghanistan rebuilt when 95% of their economy is from the sale of opiates (I am against prohibition, but Bush isn't).  Even today, after the supposed elections and overthrow of the taliban, the only way an afghan woman can make any kind of living is to work in the opium fields.\n\nWe all saw the buildup for war.  He and his messengers (condie, rumsfeld, right wing puppet congressmen) had us all believing that we were about to be nuked.  The sad thing is that the public at large bought right into it.  I must say he even got me wondering just what Mr. Saddam had up his sleeve.  I suppose that's why I was rather exited to watch the war on tv, I just wanted to see what this guy had.  I watched the sabre rattling in the weeks leading up to 'shock and awe'.  It was entertaining to watch these two morons square off.  I thought Saddam would have had more of a back bone though.  I expected to see a tienemen square scecne in Bahgdad, but right away I could tell once we entered the capitol that something was wrong.\n\nIf Bush had been right, I have no doubt that Saddam would have used those weapons on American soldiers.  But they never existed.  Just like the second attack at the gulf of Tonkin.  It never happened.  LBJ however did not lie himself, rather his advisors lied to him.  True, Johnson was willing and ready to pounce should a tit-for-tat oppertunity present itself.  He believed the second attack on a stranded US cruiser was just such an oppertunity.  His advisors knew of his willingness to decalre war and fed him intel that would lead him in that direction.  LBJ wanted to look strong on defence and strong against communism going into a tough 1964 election.  He knew that he would be judged to the standard of 'what would JFK have done?' in the public eye.  Once he had blindly acceped the attack as truth and declared war, it wasn't long before the conflict spiraled out of his control.  "For all I know, they're shooting at whales" Johnson said the next year about the war that was now out of his control.\n\nThe rhetoric leading upto Iraq was different.  The intel was 'misread' by everyone in the aministration, so either everyone is lieing or everyone is that dumb.  I think they were seeing what they wanted to see.  As soon as any intel came accross that would give a glimmer of hope to uniting the country behind a war surfaced, they took it as fact because they wanted to.  It suited their political end.\n\nI believe that this intel was also pressured out of the cia and nsa from the white house.  Bush pushed so hard for 'actionable intel' that people eventually told him what he wanted to hear.  This still continues as they try to quell the uprising.  The president is so desperate for information on both insurgents and al-queida (sp?) that he is willing to turn his back on the rest of
501170
... it's not time for a different strategy... it's time for A STRATEGY... I don't think Bush ever really had one for the rebuilding in the first place... \n\nDo you remember when all the generals were slamming Rummy... it was because they all said that we needed more troops to stabilize Iraq than we had in there, but Rummy said the number of troops were fine...\n\nSo now what do we have... the wild west... assassinations and car bombings every day with no security except in U.S. controlled zones... you can't build a country without any real security... \n\nNo one wants to help the U.S., because everyone that does ends up dead in a ditch in about a month...
331694
That's 2391 too many.  We sent them to die for no good reason.  America should only go to war when it's absolutely necessary, and Iraq was not necessary.
594248
Bush's popularity has dropped dramatically since his proposal to Iraq invasion. But still there are advocates behind him supporting his action and administration. Remember he got his second term of presidency voted by us. Good chances are this is his last term in the white house. Bush dynasty is going to be over soon.