Piranhas Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,833 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Can anyone believe this guy? The public is generally against the war, and he thinks 20,000 more troops will bring us victory in a Shiite Theocracy. The president has lost his mind.

Poll: Americans oppose Iraq troop surge
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Americans overwhelmingly oppose sending more U.S. forces to Iraq, according to a new AP-Ipsos poll that serves as a strong repudiation of President Bush's plan to send another 21,500 troops.

The opposition to boosting troop levels in Iraq reflects growing skepticism that the United States made the right decision in going to war in the first place and that a stable, democratic government can be established there. Just 35 percent think it was right for the United States to go to war, a new low in AP polling and a reversal from two years ago, when two-thirds of Americans thought it was the correct move.

Sixty percent, meanwhile, think it is unlikely that a stable, democratic Iraqi government will be established.

Fully 70 percent of Americans oppose sending more troops, and a like number don't think such an increase would help stabilize the situation there. The telephone survey of 1,002 adults was conducted Monday through Wednesday night, when the president made his speech calling for an increase in troops. News had already surfaced before the polling period that Bush wanted to boost U.S. forces in Iraq.

Democrats are far more inclined to oppose an increase of troops, with 87 percent against the idea, compared to 42 percent of Republicans. Overall, 52 percent of Republicans support an increase in troops, although some key GOP constituencies are opposed. For example, 60 percent of white evangelical Christians oppose the idea and 56 percent of self-described conservatives are opposed.

The survey had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
 

·
I Love Me Some Me
Joined
·
5,987 Posts
I just got back from Iraq and our scheduled deployment date was next August. Story short, I just got out and my old unit just found out they'll be one of the units going back this month. Sucks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,833 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I just got back from Iraq and our scheduled deployment date was next August. Story short, I just got out and my old unit just found out they'll be one of the units going back this month. Sucks
Thanks for your service. As an armchair general, I would think you'd need to seal the Syrian/Iranian borders, unleash massive firepower, and have at least a half-a-million troops to keep Iraq in line. I don't see 21,500 troops as anything more than a prolongation of the status quo. If Bush has any merits to his plan, I'd like to hear them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,330 Posts
I honestly feel that we've all had enough of Bush....this troop request will be yet another example of the American public saying no, congress saying yes(even though it changed control) and Bush will get his way in the end. He always gets his way.

Correct me if im wrong, but after he took the blame for everything wrong in Iraq, isnt that a public admittance of him messing up that would warrant some kind of reduction/exit strategy being put in place and NOT escalation. Can we say vietnam here we come.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,833 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I honestly feel that we've all had enough of Bush....this troop request will be yet another example of the American public saying no, congress saying yes(even though it changed control) and Bush will get his way in the end. He always gets his way.

Correct me if im wrong, but after he took the blame for everything wrong in Iraq, isnt that a public admittance of him messing up that would warrant some kind of reduction/exit strategy being put in place and NOT escalation. Can we say vietnam here we come.
His admittance of mistakes are in the context that he should have gone in heavier and with different rules of engagement - and that's assuming one agrees with nation-building in Iraq in the first place. He'll never admit that he's been deceptive, stubborn, incompetent, and anything else anyone might wish to add.
 

·
Offical P-Fury Ex-communicant
Joined
·
6,712 Posts
Hmmmmm.... I would have personally sent more troops than the 21.500, but hey I dont have a military brain trust working for me.

I honestly feel that we've all had enough of Bush....this troop request will be yet another example of the American public saying no, congress saying yes(even though it changed control) and Bush will get his way in the end. He always gets his way.

Correct me if im wrong, but after he took the blame for everything wrong in Iraq, isnt that a public admittance of him messing up that would warrant some kind of reduction/exit strategy being put in place and NOT escalation. Can we say vietnam here we come.
Speak for yourself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,833 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Hmmmmm.... I would have personally sent more troops than the 21.500, but hey I dont have a military brain trust working for me.
It took around 1.5 million troops to secure post war Germany, and that's after reducing it to rubble and not having IED's sent from two opposite borders. That's also for a country with a past tradition of representative govt. In a nation of 24,000,000 people, 21,500 extra won't do much. And Bush has replaced or ignored much of his brain trust.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,074 Posts
Well, the only real choices were a) cut and run or b) send more troops.
I believe they should have sent more to begin with, but now with the insurgents gaining momentum I'm not sure if even this surge will be enough to contain the situation.
 

·
Indianapolis Football
Joined
·
12,187 Posts
Fargo--I'm interested in your solution to the present situation. Sealing the borders/???
Yeah. OUR borders. And get the hell out of Iraq
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,833 Posts
Fargo--I'm interested in your solution to the present situation. Sealing the borders/???
We're fighting a global war on terror, not a single one in Iraq. We have to decide first if our standard response should be to obliterate enemies - in which case their post obliteration civil war is their own problem. Or, do we succeed by nation building, in which case other Muslim nations might follow suit. Nation building requires a compulsory draft, hundreds of thousands of armed troops, an open-ended committment, and the willingness to fight PIC. Do we really want to do that in Iraq when we have over ten other potentially dangerous Muslim countries hovering in the winds? We'd need cooperation from other Western Nations, which is not likely yet.

I would say for now we should let rival Islamic factions kill each other off and be less of a paper tiger. That means possible leaving Iraq, but we could obliterate the Sunni triangle and Sadr City as a warning before we left. Or, we could involve other nations in a three-way division of the country, with the Kurds being our allies from which we prepare against Iran, who war with is only a matter of time. 21,500 soldiers though is no sollution, especially with the current ROE. We're going to need a draft either way.

I hear all these conservatives rallying behind Bush with no idea what level of commitment it takes to rebuild a country with no tradition of representative govt. talk about a draft and they react by saying a voulunteer army can do the job. We have the best soldiers in the world. I don't think it's fair to make them shed blood for a pro-Iran shiite govt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,686 Posts
Um, ever thought what would happen if we left and let the shiites exterminate the sunnis? No you didn't I bet...lets see.

1. Shiites kill sunnis.
2. Now its a war between those two groups
3. Saudi arabia, egypt, iran, syria, jordan now enter into fray to support their group
4. Now we have a wider regional war
5. Fargo blames Bush for being stupid enough to leave and letting it happen...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,833 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Um, ever thought what would happen if we left and let the shiites exterminate the sunnis? No you didn't I bet...lets see.

1. Shiites kill sunnis.
2. Now its a war between those two groups
3. Saudi arabia, egypt, iran, syria, jordan now enter into fray to support their group
4. Now we have a wider regional war
5. Fargo blames Bush for being stupid enough to leave and letting it happen...
There's always war with Middle Eastern Muslims; only tyranny holds them together. Until we have the guts to define the problem, we'll keep getting it wrong. Isn't letting them all kill each other preferable to being stuck in the middle of them all killing each other? If we want to take Iraq, let's be honest about how to do it. It requires a mandatory draft, hundreds of thousands of troops, wholesale devestation, and a strongarm govt. to prevent tribal warfare. That's a tall order. 21,500 troops will only prolong an inevitable civil war and create more American casualties. This time next year we'll be stuck in the same problem, only with 4,000 dead Americans.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,364 Posts
Goddamn dude, I was in support of the initial war (and STILL believe it was right)... but I didn't see the consequences with respect to the entire region and the way they (and individuals of it) would react. I know hindsight is 20/20 but if I could go back I would put Saddam (with a secular government) back in power (he could at least keep the f*cking psycho muslims in check with absolute power).

I say cut and f*cking run now. Let's work on reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and sealing our own borders.

P.S. If I could go back I would still vote for Bush over Kerry........ But that is not really saying much... our choices were trash.... I don't really know HOW we can change the state of things in this country, but believe that they HAVE to change....
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top