Maybe some coming home? Doubt it. Any opinions on more troops to defend Iraq?



Bush Willing To Enlarge Iraq Force

<a href='http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/21/iraq/main584849.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/21/...ain584849.shtml</a>

CBS/AP) President Bush said Thursday that he will maintain whatever number of U.S. troops "is necessary to secure Iraq," hinting he might even raise the size of the force on the ground.

At a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Mr. Bush was asked if he had said he would start bringing U.S. troops home starting next year.

"What I said is that we'll match the security needs with the number of troops necessary to secure Iraq. And we're relying upon our commanders on the ground to make those decisions," the president said. "We could have less troops in Iraq, we could have the same number of troops in Iraq, we could have more troops in Iraq, whatever is necessary to secure Iraq."

Hours later, a throng of at least 100,000 demonstrators moved through the heart of London to send an anti-war message to Mr. Bush, erecting a towering effigy of the president so it could be toppled.

The Bush administration has a plan to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq from the current level of about 135,000 to around 105,000 by May.

Iraqi security forces are supposed to take up part of the load. The Washington Post reports the U.S. civilian authority in Iraqi, which disbanded the Iraqi military months ago, is now struggling to reconstitute parts of it.

Even if Iraqis step in to take the load, more Americans may head to the region. In order to replace U.S. troops rotating home, the Defense Department Wednesday alerted 15,000 reservists and National Guard members that they may be sent to Iraq. According to The New York Times, that means 58,000 troops are now standing by to head there.

AS a former Non-Commissioned Officer I can tell you that the additional troops are going to be there for the protection of our troops as well. It is advantageous to us, and the rest of the lunatics in other countries that hate us, to have a Democracy in the Middle East. France can't say shiznit. Ivory Coast ring a bell? How about 'Nam? Russia? Ok, Chechnya.

Let's see:
1. More troops mean greater advantage us.
2. Fewer jobs for more people = more rest time
3. Increase in search team

Sounds like a good move.

I say whatever it takes to get it done expeditiously and correctly should be done immediately!


If the answer is more troops, then more troops it should be.

If we cut and run now, it will be disaster for the US in the future.

GrayBeard Wrote:If we cut and run now, it will be disaster for the US in the future.

AMEN!

Iraq is like our 51st state, so if more troops will be needed to secure it, then so be it.

We need to secure that country so Harrah's can set up in downtown Baghdad. Hard-Rock Cafe also wants to locate there. We also need to bring in all that sod for all those Iraqi golf courses that will be built. I mean, where the hell are American fat-cat businessmen going to play golf when they go over there to check on their money?
Baghdad also needs to be safe for all the strip-clubs that will be opened up in central Baghdad. We also need to have a stadium so the NFL-Europe can expand to Baghdad. We'll call them the Baghdad Baathists or something catchy like that.

More troops, more troops, sounding more like a previous quagmire everyday. The only difference is that the troops doing the fighting are not conscripts but volunteers. If the volunteer numbers diminish, then look out because I don't know anyone over here itching to go to Iraq to fight. I know some wanting to go over there to get rich, though.

I thought Puerto Rico was our 51st state? Or was that D.C.? And don't forget about Israel (the REAL unofficial state of the good ole USA), Guatemala, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Panama, Guam. . .the list just goes on and on.

Anyway, can somebody explain to me how sending more troops to Iraq will help make our country more secure? You mean, using a very big stick makes lesser bullies not beat the sh&t out of you when you're caught slipping? Like Britain did to Sinn Fein. Or Israel has done to the PLO. Or the Contras did to the Sandinistas. Or when we showed all those people in My Lai (that's South Vietnam, btw) how Communism was a really bad idea, right before we democratically BUTCHERED them!

Man, y'all are right. I can see violence really DOES work! :chair:

joebordenrebel Wrote:Anyway, can somebody explain to me how sending more troops to Iraq will help make our country more secure? You mean, using a very big stick makes lesser bullies not beat the sh&t out of you when you're caught slipping? Like Britain did to Sinn Fein. Or Israel has done to the PLO. Or the Contras did to the Sandinistas. Or when we showed all those people in My Lai (that's South Vietnam, btw) how Communism was a really bad idea, right before we democratically BUTCHERED them!

Man, y'all are right. I can see violence really DOES work! :chair:

How about the 10 million killed by Stalin under Communism? Or the millions held hostage by Kim Jung Il in North Korea? Or the 6 million Jews murdered by Hitler and his socialist Nazis? What about the reduction of Cambodia's population by 2/3s under the Khmer Regime? Or the millions trapped in Cuba under Castro? Or the way the Soviet Union forced a nuclear standoff with America in the Cold War? Or the 1 billion under the communist party of China?

If you want to play a numbers game, then I'll give you a number.
3,000. Thats the number massacred by the VC in the village of Hui.

JBR is a hopeless romantic. He lives on dreams. He is educated, but not wise yet; knowledgable but yet without understanding of what he knows. Give him a few years in the world that exists outside of academic Eden and he will know better.

T-Monay820 Wrote:How about the 10 million killed by Stalin under Communism? Or the millions held hostage by Kim Jung Il in North Korea? Or the 6 million Jews murdered by Hitler and his socialist Nazis? What about the reduction of Cambodia's population by 2/3s under the Khmer Regime? Or the millions trapped in Cuba under Castro? Or the way the Soviet Union forced a nuclear standoff with America in the Cold War? Or the 1 billion under the communist party of China?

If you want to play a numbers game, then I'll give you a number.
3,000. Thats the number massacred by the VC in the village of Hui.

Look, you're not the sharpest marble in the toolshed so let me see if I can put this in a way that you can understand.

Violence doesn't work, period. I don't care who commits it. I think Stalin's pogroms were just as sickening as ours. I think where we diverge in opinion, however, is where you tend to jump up and down whenever your master tells you to ("Oh, tell me who to hate now, Master! Which nation is 'terrorist' and which is 'defending democracy'"?) and I recognize that our government's propaganda has a stake in painting all of those not eager to spred their legs wide for democracy with a rather broad brush (e.g., EVIL).

My point was that using violence to end violence has NEVER EVER worked. I don't care if it's our "team" or their "team." Does that make more sense now?

Wryword Wrote:JBR is a hopeless romantic. He lives on dreams. He is educated, but not wise yet; knowledgable but yet without understanding of what he knows. Give him a few years in the world that exists outside of academic Eden and he will know better.

Wry, I'm surprised at you. You, of all the posters on this board, should know better. I feel I am perhaps a bit wiser than you, my friend, for I have seen the underbelly of the beast and I know its machinations well. If there's anyone who's living in a bubble world, it's you. Nevertheless, your strindency as of late surprises me. You have always seemed a little more level-headed. What happened to being fair, counselor?

Furthermore, what's worse? A hopeless romantic or a spineless cynic? A cynic is, after all, nothing more than a romantic who does not have the courage to stand up for his convictions.