67 replies to this topic

[NickC]

Tonight, the president of the US will annouce his mistakes on the original Iraq plan.
He will also send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.

Any opinions?Comments? suggestions? concerns?

Article is here: Click Here

[z2z007]

It is not so much the fact that extra troops will be deployed that bothers me the most. I don't like how there is no clear purpose for these extra troops. There is no well executed plan or timetable behind it, to my opinion.

[NickC]

Well if she president says this plan will work, give him a chance, there isnt much WE can do anyway, he decided on it and is going to take the course of action regardless of how many people oppose to it.

[z2z007]

Give him a chance?

We gave him plenty of chances to fix the situation in Iraq. He claimed all his previous plans would work but they didn't. (I personally doubt he had any real plan in the first place after ousting Saddam.)

[stephanie]

Iraq's in civil war, they're not much we can do. It's up to teh Iraqi people to take what we provided them and build their own government. We can't hold their hands forever.

[djharkavy]

z2z007, on Jan 10 2007, 07:45 PM, said:

It is not so much the fact that extra troops will be deployed that bothers me the most. I don't like how there is no clear purpose for these extra troops. There is no well executed plan or timetable behind it, to my opinion.

There is a plan, by Frederick Kagan and Gen Jack Keane (RET) which is believed to be the backbone of President Bush's Surge Plan.

Unfortunately, Gen. Cody (Vice-Chief of Staff, Army) says that we don't have the troops necessary to follow through on it.

[TechrEvolution]

djharkavy, on Jan 10 2007, 09:19 PM, said:

There is a plan, by Frederick Kagan and Gen Jack Keane (RET) which is believed to be the backbone of President Bush's Surge Plan.

Unfortunately, Gen. Cody (Vice-Chief of Staff, Army) says that we don't have the troops necessary to follow through on it.

I guess this will sound like a leap, but would any of this lead to some agenda Bush might have for going into Iran? Please don't anybody attack me. Just think about it.

[tycoonboy388]

Supposedly, this plan has nothing to do with Iraq, the only hope with the troop increase is that the US forces finally gain control of Baghdad.

Bush isn't dumb enough to try to go into Iran. He would need approval from Congress for another "military action," which he would never get. The only thing that would bring us into Iran is if Osama bin Laden revealed that he was in Tehran, was controlling Iran's "nuclear program" and fired missiles at Baghdad, Kuwait and Israel. Any other reason would probably be thrown out, and if Bush acted without consent of Congress and ordered troops into Iran, he would be impeached without a shadow of a doubt.

[techkid]

NickC, on Jan 10 2007, 08:47 PM, said:

Well if she president says this plan will work, give him a chance, there isnt much WE can do anyway, he decided on it and is going to take the course of action regardless of how many people oppose to it.

Actually we live in a democracy, I don't know where you got that idea from. Although we elected him into office, does not mean that he is allowed to do anyhitng he wants without the backing of congress or the american people. If we allow the president to do what he wants, then it would be more of a dictatorship (hopefully a benevolent one).

tycoonboy388, on Jan 22 2007, 11:16 PM, said:

Bush isn't dumb enough to try to go into Iran. He would need approval from Congress for another "military action," which he would never get. The only thing that would bring us into Iran is if Osama bin Laden revealed that he was in Tehran, was controlling Iran's "nuclear program" and fired missiles at Baghdad, Kuwait and Israel. Any other reason would probably be thrown out, and if Bush acted without consent of Congress and ordered troops into Iran, he would be impeached without a shadow of a doubt.

I agree.

[djharkavy]

techkid, on Jan 22 2007, 11:49 PM, said:

Actually we live in a democracy, I don't know where you got that idea from. Although we elected him into office, does not mean that he is allowed to do anyhitng he wants without the backing of congress or the american people. If we allow the president to do what he wants, then it would be more of a dictatorship (hopefully a benevolent one).

Actually we live in a Republic. We elect our leaders and expect them to do what we want, until we get a chance to change our minds in the next election.

In the case of the Presidency, Congress declares War, but the President decides what to do with the troops. President Bush can invade Iran on his say-so, but then has to get Congress to authorize the attack, the funding and to declare war on Iran or the troops have to withdraw. The War Powers Act of 1973 gave a 60 day limit before the President has to gain the approval of Congress.

Further, the Authorization to use Military Force, passed by Congress in 2001, right after 9-11, is vaguely written enough that President Bush may already have the lattitude to attack Iran and consider it authorized by Congress. Again, Congress may refuse to fund the movement into Iran, but then it is faced with a political decision as to whether to cut off funding to the 'troops' and have that used against them in the next political campaign.

Things are not so cut and dried as it would seem.

[Quixotic]

i remember reading that one of the plans for Iraq would be to establish friendlier relations with the civilian populations so you "win the heart" of the people so that they won't harbor terrorists. They're suppsoed to do this by doing humanitarian stuff instead of fighting all the time but I don't think they had enough troops to support that kind of plan.

[tycoonboy388]

From what I have read, a good deal of humanitarian aid has gone into Iraq (more than what has gone into rebuilding the Gulf Coast after Katrina). However, its hard to for the US to take credit for those projects, especially when sectarian groups, like al-Sadr's Mahdi Army claims responsibility for opening up hospital clinics and recreation centers that were built with American funds. In the minds of many Iraqi's, we're seen only as occupiers and there aren't many people who are trying to convey a different story to the people.

[PinKkFloyDd]

z2z007, on Jan 10 2007, 08:45 PM, said:

It is not so much the fact that extra troops will be deployed that bothers me the most. I don't like how there is no clear purpose for these extra troops. There is no well executed plan or timetable behind it, to my opinion.

Give him a chance? He's had four years and has done nothing but made mistakes. How long should our troops die before we finally realize Iraq is basically a lost cause.

[z2z007]

I'm not a Bush supporter and I don't like giving him a chance either but you can't just pull out all the troops in all of a sudden and leave Iraq unstable. That might lead to seeds of another Taliban like regime taking over or generate more animosity towards the U.S.

I agree that we should have never been there in the first place but since we are in there, the job has to get done properly.

[NickC]

PinKkFloyDd, on Mar 20 2007, 10:12 PM, said:

Give him a chance? He's had four years and has done nothing but made mistakes. How long should our troops die before we finally realize Iraq is basically a lost cause.

Hmm, yeah, give him a chance of course. I mean all of us realized that the war was a 'mistake" only because it was fought and it didnt turn out the way it was suppose to. If all of us had known it was going to be a mistake then why didnt we stop it before it happened?

And that is true(what Z said), we cant suddenly say "Hey tomorrow we will take ALL troops out of Iraq and bring them home!" It cant happen that way. Right now the situation is compared to a person's common cold. You take antibiotics to relieve your cold. The cold is compared to the war and the antibiotics are the troops, you will begin to take less and less or even no antibiotics because you know that your cold is getting better. Same for Iraq, we will begin to take troops out of Iraq slowly and slowly until everyone comes home.

[tycoonboy388]

Except we have not been removing troops. Instead we've been sending more into Iraq, further diminishing our troop strengths in other areas across the globe, and last time I checked, the Taliban actually had something to do with Al-Qaeda and therefore 9/11, but we're not sending more troops there. We're shortening time off for soldiers, sending them back for multiple tours, and stretching our resevers, and some of our national guard to the brink. We do not have the troop strength to continue, and actively waging a war that is highly unpopular will not incentivize more volunteers to join up and fight. Much to my displeasure, Iraqi war vets have seen their faire share of attacks from the American people, this is not about the troops this is about the President. His Middle East policy has produced one global blunder after another.

[z2z007]

This is why I questioned the strategy put in place by the Bush administration. What is being accomplished with the extra troops?

I find it distressing that Bush continues to ignore his army advisors.

[PinKkFloyDd]

z2z007, on Mar 20 2007, 10:22 PM, said:

I'm not a Bush supporter and I don't like giving him a chance either but you can't just pull out all the troops in all of a sudden and leave Iraq unstable. That might lead to seeds of another Taliban like regime taking over or generate more animosity towards the you.S.

I agree that we should have never been there in the first place but since we are in there, the job has to get done properly.

Yes, sending 20k soldiers is really taking them out.

[z2z007]

Hey, I never agreed with the whole troop deployment plan and I think it is excessive. I was just countering on the notion to simply withdraw immediately.

[PinKkFloyDd]

z2z007, on Mar 20 2007, 10:22 PM, said:

I'm not a Bush supporter and I don't like giving him a chance either but you can't just pull out all the troops in all of a sudden and leave Iraq unstable. That might lead to seeds of another Taliban like regime taking over or generate more animosity towards the you.S.

I agree that we should have never been there in the first place but since we are in there, the job has to get done properly.

Iraq will always be unstable. So pulling out ASAP is the best because whether we stay or go, the only difference will be how many American lives are lost. Though it's sad to say, Iraq will inevitably collapse due to the different groups of Muslims. And our presence only created more hate and terrorism then there was before. Pulling out is the best option available, as grim as it may be.