9/13 Why We Can't Send More Troops - http://csua.org/u/gw3 (Wash Post)
Well, we can, but we would need to do any of:
(1) Give existing troops even less down time
(2) Increase size of our armed forces
(3) Fund equipment shortfalls
\_ Why would we want to send more troops? Wouldn't more troops just
piss off the local population, create more opportunity for troops
to mix poorly with the locals resulting in 'incidents' and generally
make everything worse? What are these new troops going to do? Why
do you want more dead Iraqis?
\_ Sending enough troops to make a difference is not possible,
unfortunately. Enough troops would be some number that is more
than one division. We don't have that many. And IMO it
probably won't even work if we had the troops, so I agree with
you there.
\_ Again, I ask you: difference to what? What do you think these
extra troops are going to do? They are going to kill people.
That is what troops do. Why do you want to kill more Iraqis?
\_ "IMO it probably won't even work if we had the troops, so
I agree with you there". But to answer your question, if
reality stopped getting in the way, ideally by blanketing
Iraq in 300K-400K troops, we could keep safe areas safe
while still going after anyone who has a problem / killing
Iraqis, the citizenry would get used to the safe areas and
peace would spread. This is sloppy thinking.
\_ So you advocate martial law nation wide which will lead
to further increase in conflict and complaints about
colonialism, oppression, and occupation. And how do
you expect to "go[ing] after anyone who has a problem"
without killing people? Going after = killing people.
And killing people will lead to mistakes and accidents
and soliders gone bad which means dead civilians and
even more insurgency growth. Again I ask, why do you
want to kill more Iraqis? How does putting more
soldiers in an area lead to anything but more dead
civilians? Maybe the problem here is that you don't
understand what soldiers are trained to do. They are
not police. They are not peace keepers. They are not
maintainers of law and order. They are trained to kill.
They kill people. For good or bad, soldiers are
trained to kill people, everything else is secondary.
\_ I do not think a lot of things you think I think.
Re-read what I wrote. Let's see how you did:
Do I support sending more troops into Iraq?
\_ You keep advocating the position. It isn't my
fault if what is in your head is not what you are
writing. I can only go by what you write.
\_ trollP
\_ #f. Still not my fault the other poster
can't write what he means.
\_ readingcomprehensionP
\_ #t. Still not my fault the other
person can't write what he means.
When I can read minds through the net
I'll let you know.
\_ [racist trash removed]
\_ to pretend that our foreign policy is not in effect being
controlled by Jewish lobbyst is a joke. don't agree with
israeli foreign policy != racist nor anti-semitic.
\_ we should of blanket Iraq with half-million to a million troop
\_ we haven't had that many troops since the draft. where
were we going to get 500k - 1m troops?
when the "mission" was "accomplished." Iraqis did gave USA a chance
\_ context counts. go look this one up.
to stablize the country. That "good will" among the general
\_ yes we should've declared martial law and didn't. that was
a serious failure any 6 year old could've pointed out at
the time.
population has been long gone as the occupation passed the 3rd year
mark. The 2nd alternative is to sit down with Iraq's neighbors
in the attempt of stop the civil war, as each of Iraq's neighbors
is promoting their own factions inside Iraq and making peace next
to impossible. This of course means sit down with Saudi Arabia,
Syria, Turkey, and Iran and come up with a deal which may
includes lift virtual economic sanction against Syria, allowing
Turkey to crush Kurdish rebel on both sides of the border, and
\_ why is it the Kurds have to take it up the ass on both
sides of the border? wth did the Kurds ever do to anyone?
security guarentee to the Iranian regime and even allow Iranian to
to continue to enrich Uranium. The 3rd option is,
\_ no. iran having nukes is far worse than an all out civil
war in iraq.
I hate to say this, is simply bite the bullet and get out of Iraq,
and take the consequences of our action which may include genocide.
\_ there won't be a genocide (except maybe of the Kurds).
civil war would be likely but not genocide. the two muslim
populations have too much nearby support on each side for
one to get that kind of advantage over the other in the
absence of the US military.
In other word, Democrate need to realize that there is no good
alternatives here; and we can't reverse a bad policy. We should
treat the subsequence genocide / civil war as result of Bush's
bad judgement, accept the result, and communicate this point to
the masses. Yes, people will accuse Democrats for "cut and run."
But the only alternative options on the table are "cut and run"
or dealing with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to come up with
a proposal that satisfied all parties. Personally, this would
\_ In other words, "we have no imagination so we're just going
to cop-out and walk away".
be my choices. But I am not an elected official and I don't
\_ and fortunately never will be.
have the campaign pressure. I am going
to assume Jewish lobbist in DC is not going to get too excited
\_ but you are a racist piece of trash.
about sitting down and play nice with Iran and Syria.
\_ because talking to terrorist sponsors from a position of
weakness is a good plan.
\_ #t. Still not my fault the other
person can't write what he means.
When I can read minds through the net
I'll let you know.
\_ [racist trash removed] |
http://csua.com/feed/