Many people don't support a troop surge. Some people oppose it because they really haven't thought about the issue (or aren't knowledgeable, which is just as dangerous). Others have thought about the issue, and still oppose it. These are the reasons I support it.
1) It's really the only possible way to save Iraq from destruction. The troop levels we have now clearly isn't enough (in fact this was clear 3 years ago, but bush was too worried about making it appear there was a problem to fix the problem). There is no political solution to fix the problems, and the thought that there is is just as blindfully hopeful as bush was to think there would be no insurgency.
2) Decreasing troop levels would not make people support the government, but would erode support for the government because the Iraqis would realize that any support for the government would be futile. If the government is going to collapse, who is going to risk their lives to support it, snich on insurgents, etc. This would just increase the incentive to fend for themselves rather than work for the benefit of the whole.
3) As much as many liberals (I myself am a liberal) pretend that it's not their fault, but rather bush's fault, we are responsible as Americans for what happens in Iraq. If we leave Iraq, millions of people will be killed in a mass genocide. Liberals have to stop pretending that this war is not all of our faults and our problem and that if millions of people die, it is our problem. People blame us for not doing anything about Rwanda, and Darfur, and all these other places, while we support pulling out of Iraq which would have similar, if not worse, consequences. I don't want to be responsible for millions of deaths, and neither should you.
4) We never really gave the country a chance to get on it's feet. This is largely Donald Rumsfeld's fault. The military said we needed 300,000 troops to crush any insurgency that could come up. We've never had much over 150,000 at any point in the war. We also spent a great deal of time looking for WMD's while literaly hundreds of thousands of tons of weapons were looted from stockpiles 20 years in the making. To say we gave the Iraqis a chance and they failed simply isn't accurate. That makes it more wrong for us to pull out.
While a troop surge doesn't guarantee victory, and is one of several things that must coincide together to achieve victory. An increase in troops in Bagdad can reduce the violence, especially troops stationed directly in the city, enough for Iraqi troops and police to gain a foothold in some of these areas. The troop surge plan is also supposed to coincide with a growth in Iraqi jobs, hopefully bringing some of the unemployed Iraqis of the streets. Maliki also has to finally has to crack down on the Shiite militias, which there has been some initial evidence that he is. I think we should give them a year to a year and a half to show that they are getting their sh*t together, and if they don't show any progress, it's clearly hopeless.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 147
I don't support this surge because I think it is way too little and way too late for exactly the reason you cited in your article. Mr. Bush was too busy playing CYA and blowing sunshine that when a surge would have possibly had a positive effect, he wouldn't even consider it. It was suggested at the beginning of the insurgency and again at the beginning of the sectarian violence. Had he chosen to send in a lot of troops, not just the 20K he's proposing now, he had an opportunity to make a difference.
I have not read of a single expert or military commander who feels that at this point, with things as bad as they are, that 20K troops can possibly make a significant difference to the eventual outcome. The bottom line is that the Iraqis themselves have to decide they prefer a thriving and peaceful country to indiscriminately murdering one another. The government has to be strong enough to give them the opportunity to make this decision. Neither is true at the moment.
I agree we have an obligation since we made this mess. However, that only goes so far, and thus far Mr. Maliki has not stepped up to his own responsibilities nor has his government. We cannot win in Iraq. Only the Iraqis can do that now, and they don't seem particularly willing or able to do so.
I was/am against it. I just feel it is to little to late. I see all of your points, and agree with what you have said, but I do not see how 21,000 more troops will make the difference at this point.
The Iraqi army apparently played a large role in the fight in Najaf the other day. If they are improving, why couldn't we just shift more troops from around Iraq into Anbar & Baghdad? Then only playing a support/reactionary role, letting the Iraqis take the lead.
I hope it works, and some form of stability can be achieved. I also believe it is in all of our best interests, but there are some I think only hope that it completely falls apart. Basically rooting for our defeat, it is sad actually.
What option do you have that could potentialy avoid a genocide? I would really love to know.
All the other losers on here are "United for Defeat and Humiliation."
I think that explains it. Even knowing that all hell will break loose, the left wing nuts don't care how many millions would die. They will just say it was Bush's fault anyways, and have a 'clear conscious', not willing to admit that their 'grand plan' brought about the horror that followed our departure.
Still, the majority of Americans oppose Bush's treasonous war and these patriots will not be persuaded that there is any rationality to it.
Instead of having all these forum right wingers continually attacking anyone who opposes Bush's treason, why don't these hatemongers make an example of themselves by marching off to fight the criminal war?
Merely saying that the surge in Bush's treasonous war of imperialistic terrorism is a good thing does not constitute support. All you are really doing is endorsing Bush terrorism, not supporting it. You support Bush's 'surge' by actually taking part in it. Why not sign up now - Bush desperately needs you!
I wonder what your response would be if I told you that you are not entitled to an opinion if you had never served in the armed services?
Take your Michael Moore talking points and...well I will let you use your imagination...
I agree with a troop surge and a change of strategy, which is what they are doing.
TA you have a single digit iq. All you do is rant and rave about anti religion,anti Bush, anti Iraqi war, You are boring, all you know how to do is call names. You must live a miserable life. Is there anything that you are happy about??
I have a 128 IQ, Yes I hate Bush (i hate liars who abuse power), yes i hate wars that was lied about to get us into, no im not boring just ask my partner, No i live a great life make good monies have nice stuff and a partner i been with for 8 years we are buying a house soon, ill be happy once we get control back to the people, NORMAL people, not nut jobs.
Let's win this war.
Thank you for having the guts to reveal the true motives behind all the left's political garbage about the war and their anti-troop/anti-america efforts. It's all about making Bush look as bad as possible so they can win the next elections. Don't be fooled by their falsely altruistic mumbo jumbo.
For what exactly? Because you do not like them?
Dems, at least most of the ones in Congress, are smart enough to realize that if they venture down that path, it will never end. Not only would it cost them the 2008 elections, but not matter who was elected the nut jobs on the other side (and that means right and left) would be screaming impeachment every year.
Just let it go...have a drink or something
I am for the extra troops, as long as they aren't drafted.
The point being that the TRUE way to support your treasonous hero Bush is to actually do his fighting for him. This does not necessarily mean that it is the exclusive way of doing so. But Bush and his camp are desperate for help.
So here's where to go =
Army Recruitment
Move your butt on over there and you'll be showing your real support for the traitor in chief.
But that figure is for Cheney is entertaining, 3100% increase in 2004? Did that set a record on the stock exchange? Are you blind, or did you actually see their stock increase that much? Sorry TA, that is too funny.
Please point me to the moveon.org and a zillion other 527 groups that raised millions to fight Bush. Show me the Clinton version.
What about the gazillion anti-Bush books - a cottage industry in and of itself. Show me the Clinton version.
All the anti-Bush websites... what did we have? Drudge? Wow.
How many anti-Clinton protest marches were there for Clinton when he decided to go to war in Bosnia/Kosovo? Open your eyes to the truth.
Dems have been pissed since Gore got beat in 2000 - and the hate hasn't stopped since. (and we still took the 2004!!!!!)
That's a good title for one who ''supports'' Bush but won't march off to his criminal war.
Concerns have been raised regarding the possible conflict of interest resulting from Cheney's deferred compensation and stock options from Halliburton. However, before entering office in 2001, Cheney bought an insurance policy that guaranteed a fixed amount of deferred payments from Halliburton each year for five years so that the payments would not depend on the company's fortunes.[5] He is legally bound by an agreement he signed which turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (in Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education. The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," preventing Cheney from taking back the options at a later date.[5]
Our troops are trained to kill people and break things. When we hold them back - even 1,000,000 more troops wouldn't work. But when you allow a highly motivated and extremely efficient force do the job they are trained for - the number of soldiers we have is more than enough.
For a more detailed analysis of the change in strategy see "The Immediate Military Benefits of the President's Speech" - http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976882254.
Here we go again --- we have discussed enough times on this forum the fact that the incursion into Yugoslavia was a NATO action, meaning it was sanctioned by treaty.
And unlike treasonous Bush's war NOT ONE AMERICAN WAS KILLED IN YUGOSLAVIA!
It never ceases to amaze me how the slightest fault by a Democrat is pounced on by Republicans like it was the worse form of sacrilege but Republican stupidity is continually applauded and defended by these nitwits.
Ruth - we don't need 200,000 more troops. See my comment above.
Do some reading TA, but to help you out here are the 'highlights':
Stock Options
That still would leave the possibility that Cheney could profit from his Halliburton stock options if the company's stock rises in value. However, Cheney and his wife Lynne have assigned any future profits from their stock options in Halliburton and several other companies to charity. And we're not just taking the Cheney's word for this -- we asked for a copy of the legal agreement they signed, which we post here publicly for the first time.
The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education , a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.
The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later.
The options owned by the Cheney's have been valued at nearly $8 million, his attorney says. Such valuations are rough estimates only -- the actual value will depend on what happens to stock prices in the future, which of course can't be known beforehand. But it is clear that giving up rights to the future profits constitutes a significant financial sacrifice, and a sizeable donation to the chosen charities.
Or, you can continue to parrot lies, choice is yours...
But even that story stated the same thing that this piece does a year before they spun it...
When the US leaves, the strongest group would have vested interest in stability. And might give up their position in exchange for some harmony. That would probably be the Shiites. If your on top, then stability benefits you. The Shiites can and will be much more cruel in achieve that goal, and doesn't have the eye of the world on how that achieve those means.
Time for the US to pullout, and let Iraq solve it's own problem.
It's about time we started focusing on China, who are poised to be the new overlords in the ME.
And if the US did get out of Iraq, China would try to get in there either with Iran or instead of Iran. How can we do a better job preventing China's growing influence in the Mid East from afar rather than being involved? I don't think you have really thought out all the consequences of our being defeated in Iraq.
That's why we have to stay and win.
Dale Coparanis commented Jan 30, 2007 ~~
I was replying to Don's post. He is the one who brought up Bosnia, not I.
And unlike treasonous Bush, nobody died because Clinton ever lied.
It never ceases to amaze me how reich wingers like Steve Y and other Bush supporters continue to criticize Clinton for even the slightest mistake that he makes but look the other way at the stupid policies of a criminal like Bush.
Again, Clinton was complying with a NATO treaty obligation in Yugoslavia. Read the earlier posts on the subject or do a google search if you need further proof. By contrast, Bush's criminal war is one of choice and personal profit. How can anyone continue to approve of such criminality and treason???
Aw Luckky, your lies continue to flow, and yet you still have not answered my initial questions.
So when or where did I criticize Clinton now? 'Reich winger', when did I become one of those? Did you even bother to read the article or comments before you began spewing your idiotic rants? I am willing to bet you did not. But then again, you prefer ignorance, so why should I bother with you....now I will sign off
And all I did was compare who had the worse smear campaign. I pointed to the Moore movie, MoveOn and other 527 groups, and a few other things. Bush has gotten beat up far worse than Clinton. That was ALL I said. Next time, shut your pie hole.
Saddam... dead. Saddam's sons... dead. Many more things I could point to. Geoffreack - we have not lost and we won't lose. Despite guys like you, America will finish what we started.
Would you agree that our economy is doing very well? Or is it the case that we are in a recession. Tell me how you feel about this Bush economy.
Sorry Geoffrey - I don't treat Presidents with blind hatred. I may have a laugh or two about some off moments, but not the pure hatred that I see from liberals toward Bush.
I just try to be reasonable about it. Wish I could say the same for our democrat friends.