Do you agree with President Bush's plan to add 21,500 troops to those now in Iraq?

Show all answers

Post your answer

trucks2	No...I personally think he's an idiot!!! He shouldn't send anybody elses children unless his daughters go first. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

mcluck	of course,no Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

ktray1275	yes it should have been done long ago Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Aldo 78520	No. I do not agree because there would be more loss of life of troops. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

sid	no as iam pretty sure the only thing we should be sending is a Tony Bxxxxxliar hiding behind that bush Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

ANIMAL	Not at all. It just means we will do as antichrist Bush wants done, we will loose more soldiers, we will have more injured mental and physical men and women to plague us in America when they return and we will make more enemies in Iraq through our violations of these people through more intimidations and attrocities, eventually the Islamic Nations will unite together and decrease of cease trade with the USA , they will sale their oil to china and russia and obtain nuclear arms to defend their lands. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

IMA SUCK@SS	I think we should bring our troops home and then nuke them motherfu*kers! Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

dougdell	If Soldiers dying was a reason not to fight, then we would all be speaking German or Japanese now (we never would have fought WW I or II). Slavery would still be legal in the Southern states (we never would have fought the civil war). Or we'd all be pledging allegience to the queen (we never would have fought the revolution). Liberals need to get a clue - sometimes security and freedom are worth the ultimate sacrifice. If you are afraid to fight, fine - the rest of us are willing to die to defend you and your rights. But if you don't think there are a lot of people out there who hate us, you're dead (so to speak...) wrong. And don't blame Bush for that hatred - many more attacks on the US occurred during Clinton's presidency than during Bush's. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

watts	He has to do it.......no choice. We have to win this. To back out now, means that soliers gave their lives for nothing. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

rukidding	I'm not sure. It sounds to me like the extra troops are not going to go in there, join their comrades, and kick Iraq's butt back into shape. We've tried it the nice, easy way, but that's only gotten troops killed. I think they need to go in there and lay down the law until the violence stops and Iraq can get back on the road to recovery. It doesn't sound like that's what these added troops are for. If they're going to do more of the same, I disagree. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

kja63	No I don't. I believe that this is a bad idea. The Iraqi people don't want us there. The Iraqi military,police and government need to step up to the plate and take responsibility for THEIR country. It's time for our soldiers to come home. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

bostonianinmo	No. To have any meaningful impact we would need to double the number of troops on the ground and commit to a long haul of at least 20 years. Lacking that, just bring the troops home. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

kat	no,pretty soon we wont have enuff troops here in the states to protect us on our own soil,they will all be in iraq Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

ajayv9	yes, but because I think for those who were there can now ask for leave, or take some rest. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

jl_jack09	No, it's a fools venture. Iraq is in civil war. The occupation of Iraq should end. Only fools call "occupation" as "the war on terror". Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

greendonkey34	Not really Bush's plan because he only does what his advisors tell him to do.Bush is a nobody. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

marcel m	well i disagree because send more troops cannot change a thing bush need to have the iraqis leadership to pass a law to unarmed everybody that's carry a gun without a permit and then make it's illilligal to carry a gun without permits. but sending more troops is a resting time. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

mexicanopanson	hell no why should we send more troops to iraq and some of them die Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

nazilover1488	Not enough. He needs to flood that country with another 100,000 troops. Have them go into insurgent strongholds and kill everyone there. Then doze the towns to powder. The rest can surrender or be destroyed. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Lily P	YES! Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

PDK	It is a serious question that deserves serious answers. Iraq is a major player in the Middle East, which if it destabalizes, could cause serious wars and conflict with Europe and Western Asia. The troops the President has decided to send in may or may not make a serious impact. What they need is the ability to conduct their jobs without the hinderance of the American Congress getting in their way. Human rights did not win World War II, human rights did not stop the Nazi regieme. But besides that fact, what is more terrifying is the possibility of destabalization. Everyone keeps moaning and groaning of our troops going over and what are we doing there, how can we do what we are doing? Simply put, if Iraq falls to civil war, or is invaded by it's historical enemy Iran (lest we forget the Iran Iraq War with the five year olds carrying their coffins into battle) Israel would be directly threatened. Iran has already said Israel should be wiped off the face of the map, and Israel has clearly stated that they will use all means necessary to protect their soverignty. Iraq falling gives Israel the go ahead to gear up their nuclear program as a defense means. Iran may have the capability to conduct dirty bombings, Israel has the means to wipe cities off the map, not hundreds of people, but millions. So if Israel is attacked or they are provoked to attack, then Iran's historical ally Russia as well as the other Arabic countries would rally against Israel. In turn causing her allies to rally against those countries. A vacuum of power in that country alone could very well bring about a nuclear conflict between many of the countries in the world. We don't hear about this in the news or from our Congres, or from the President because history is not popular, history does not bring in the ratings. The truth is too dam scary to acknowledge so we fill our lives with unrealistic demands, protests, things that make us feel good and comfortable. And we totally ignore what is actually at risk of happening. What happens if we pull out and even a quarter of the worst possible scenario happens? Will our congress say "Oops sorry, my bad." Nope, we might not even have an active Congress then. So to answer your question, in my opinion, I hope to God that what he has sent is enough to stabalize the region, for all of our sakes. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

El Pistolero Negra	Only if his intention is to use them in a more aggressive strategy to wipe out the people causing the violence. Simply sending them to police the streets will be as big a failure as the current number policing the streets. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

I.M.	Sending 22,000 troops in a country of 22 million is like putting a drop of coffee in a bucket of water and calling it espresso. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Jaded	no... he needs to implement an exit strategy. On a side note, I'm sure he would send more if he could but the troops are currently stretched to the limit. Unless a new draft is enforced, we can barely cover the 20000 troops. It's scary, but we would be in a lot of trouble if any other country tried to attack us while we are in Iraq. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

?	As long as they acomplish something yes. Their old stratagy was not working. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Elway_the_Cat	No, I do not. I think he is tilting at windmills. We will not be able to effectively cause change in Iraq until Iraq steps up to help herself. It might make a difference if we were able to rachet up the surge numbers to 100,000 instead of 20,000. Bush used this same low amount of troops in surges twice during 2006. It did nothing to change the situation. The fact is that we don't have the military numbers available to send the amount of troops it would take to settle down the violence. Bush said last night that we need to find a way to increase the Army and the Marine forces. But he offered no solution to doing so. Reading between the lines I thought that "draft" was written all over that. He's dying to attack Iran, but can only do from the air because of our low numbers in the military. If he decides to go after Iran and Syria a draft will be the only answer. It's clear that the majority of the American people disapprove of our activity in the region and they certainly aren't rushing to sign up for the mess that has been created by this Administration in the Middle East. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

bereal1	What he is proposing makes sense because it is working in other provinces.. The thing is though, will the Iraqi government step up. If not I don't see how we will be able to help them. Bush gives them until November, I can live with that (and yes I do have family members over there). The soldiers after hearing the plan think it can work but it is up to the Iraqis to make it work.. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Proud to be an AMERICAN	Yes. Send even more if we need to in order to prevail! Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

robert2020	NO! Too little too late. He should have sent more to begin with. I am not saying one way or another whether the war is good or bad, just that this is not effective. Johnson did the same thing during the Vietnam war. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

PraiseBob	YES! We will never see an end to this if we do not commit the resources necessary to establish control and allow the fledgling government in Baghdad to grow strong enough to defend themselves against the radicals. However, if we continue with our under staffed efforts this will drag on and on due to our inability to effectively neutralize the "insurgents". Also, if we simply leave the whole area will erupt in full scale civil war and we will eventually have to return under much worse circumstances than currently exist. FINNISH THE JOB SO OUR TROOPS CAN COME HOME!!!! Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

some polisci major	Nope. More troops will not change a thing as long as the same old failed tactics are used. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No