more troops to Iraq

[vex10]

So what does everyone think about sending more troops to Iraq?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6255151.stm

Personally i think bush has lost it and i think its another veitnam waiting to happen.

And with tony "lap dog" blair falling in line with bush again, this is only leading ro more bloodshed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6254253.stm

this qoute is so true:
Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond said Mr Blair had made the world "a more dangerous place" and was "clearly trying to foist that legacy onto his successor".

edit:

I dont know what will solve this as it was there doing in the first place that caused this mess

[Alpha_Pasta]

Last change Mr Bush.

Disagree vex. We should not scale down our armed forces - and that article is not really relevant to the question of more troops to Iraq.

[vex10]

the first artical is about the 20000 troops and the second is about blair who wants to peacekeep "and" fight terrorism, the bottom of the artical has a few qoutes that say blair (and bush as they were the ones who lied in the first place to go to war) has made the world a more dangrous place.

If they hadnt lied we would not be in iraq, and our armed forces would not be so streached. I think that they kind of go hand in hand becuase when bush makes this move blair will likely follow and commit more troops to iraq, even though the forces are streached.

[MidnightRider]

I think we need to stop trying to be world police and deal with the probs we have at home 1st.

[Master_of_Puppets]

Not bashing Bush...(more Rumsfeld bashing if at all)

But i do believe that one of the main flaws in the military strategy of the Coalition forces was exactly the one that they planing on correcting....it is indeed sad that this wasnt done in the first place...and yet it was such an obvious flaw that didnt occur to me untill just a little while ago.

-We treated the freeing of Iraq as a feeble bridge: We move in build a section and proceed without assuring that the section we just built is sturdy enough to last....now those weak sections are falling apart and we have to back track and rebuild them. But as we are rebuilding one section, the another is collapsing

-We clear an area of insurgent activity and sectarian violence and just leave it be....we move on and the insurgents come right back when we are gone, we come back, do our thing, they leave, and so do we...so on and so forth.

-With this new plan (which should have been our first) we are sending more troops to help secure these hotspots such as certain neighborhoods in Baghdad or the al-Anbarm Provence (Ar Ramadi, Al Hadithah, etc...). After we secure these places, we help the Iraqi security forces move in and set up a permanent presence through the use of constant patrols, checkpoints and police stations.

-Once we are assured that one "section of bridge" is built and well maintained, we then can we move on to the next.

-I know that the plan stated on television clearly stated this (maybe in not so many words) but i felt id attempt to elaborate using an easy to understand (for people with common sense) simile, because far too many a time obvious statements and ideas have been twisted and skewed by the liberal and secular media (basically all of it) into something that will be embraced by the anti-bush, anti-war crowd. Where I see a sound plan to increase troop levels in order to achieve a set goal that actually has a chance at success, others will see an evil attempt to increase the the death and destruction in the Middle East.

-It makes me laugh to see all these people who believe that they have the solutions to issues like Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea in their backpocket....when asked to present these ideas they are all the same..."We need to talk to them and work out a deal"..., kemon people, what in the hell are you thinking, listen to what you are saying....the people we are dealing with are not the kind who want to talk....they are the kind who want to get their greasy hands on a nuke and blow us to kingdom come, or who are un-capable of successfully controling their own country without us giving them a jump start...you see this is that secular-progressive idea used in the desprate hopes to weaken the US and force a way of international-ism where all countries are equal in power and make decicions together....we've tried that once people....it's called the UN....not quite the poster-child of international peace and progress now is it?

[Alpha_Pasta]

If they hadnt lied we would not be in iraq, and our armed forces would not be so streached. I think that they kind of go hand in hand becuase when bush makes this move blair will likely follow and commit more troops to iraq, even though the forces are streached.

We need to move on now. That point was relevant a few years ago when troops were being sent to Iraq - but not now.

We can't leave Iraq, that would be even more dishonest than going there in the first place.

[Zach]

I think bush is doing this all wrong. The reason he is sending 21,500 troops , is to stop all the terrorist from going in and out of Syria and Iran. Does he really think 21,500 troops are going to be able to do it ? What he needed to do is send in 300,000 troops if he wanted anything to get done in Iraq. Now there is just going to be 21,500 troops away from their families and friends for the next 16 months in harms way with the same **** going on as there is today.

[Mig]

Personally, I am real bored of Iraq. I say get the hell out of there, get America the hell out of there and sort out or own bloody countries first.

[Wookiesa]

good point mig, but youve got to remember that at one point Britian nearly ruled the world and i think some of us still think that we still do, and Americas politicians for some reasons seem to think they can heal the world, This time it was Clearly about Oil no matter how much they deny it, and tbh i dont think these countries will have peace even if the troops do leave, but i say let them leave as like you say our own countries need sorted before we save the World.

[BritishBulldog1]

Here we go again! So far, IMHO, the only people that seem to any semblance of an idea, are puppet and to an extent, Alpha.

People have such short memories, they forget the horror of reading about the way the Iraqi people were treated by Saddam. As for dialogue, think of Neville Chamberline and "Peace in our time." Where did that get him? The second world war is what it got him. You cannot negotiate with fanatics, unless you are prepared to give them everything they want and expect nowt in return.

BB1

[Master_of_Puppets]

This time it was Clearly about Oil no matter how much they deny it.

Can you please tell me how this was "clearly about oil"? so it is impossible for "us" to deny it...

Details please, facts, dates, documents, etc.... anthing you can provide for an undeniable fact that it was about oil....and dont pull that crap how Bush and the VP have oil ties in the family so they have a motive to "invade a sovereign nation" just for the oil.

-Personally I think the Oil argument is the dumbest, most unthought motive the liberal's and overall ignoranoramuses have thought up yet.

[Alpha_Pasta]

I agree Oil is the most unlikely cause anyway.

A fool can see that the US and UK's prices have short through the roof - and the war in Iraq has done nothing to ease it. So that argument doesn't really make much sense.

[BritishBulldog1]

It would have been cheaper to bribe Saddam then to invade for the oil.

hey puppet, why don't you say what you mean lol

BB1

[Savage]

Hes on his last chance, hes hopin sending more troops will make it all good. its been done before, if ur losing send in more peps

[Master_of_Puppets]

But really, I think that this plan may have a chance at success. When we sent more troops both times we did nothing different. Now we have a set plan as to help the Iraqi security forces set up permanent shop in the areas causing them the most trouble. Once that is done, then we can disscuss a pull-out. Hopefully by then the ISF will have learned enough about protecting their own country that they wont need our help and they can root out any escalating (sp?) violence when it happens. But let me assure you, there will always be a permament US presence in Iraq. There will be no historical last US personel departure of Baghdad International. We will always be there just like Germany, Japan, Korea...

[Zach]

I agree , in 50 years , no one will remember this war. I do think that maybe this could work but bush is not sending enough troops to get it done IMO.

[Zapperz]

Yeah, bush needs to slow it down. There is 25,000 Soilders over in Iraq and Idkw bush put in that many. All that Iraq is going to do now is get more people from somewere else. Like Zach said, no one will remember this in a couple decades.

[bartuc08]

So what does everyone think about sending more troops to Iraq?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6255151.stm

Personally i think bush has lost it and i think its another veitnam waiting to happen.

And with tony "lap dog" blair falling in line with bush again, this is only leading ro more bloodshed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6254253.stm

this qoute is so true:
Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond said Mr Blair had made the world "a more dangerous place" and was "clearly trying to foist that legacy onto his successor".

edit:

I dont know what will solve this as it was there doing in the first place that caused this mess

IMO we lost the Vietnam war because the folks back at home weren't supporting the troops. The troops after getting shot out and narrowly escaping with there lives , went back home to a country that hated them. Its the American right to protest the war and what not, but gexuz people u need to think...

as for sednign troops into Iraq in the first place, i think that was prolly the best, if not only, decision. we had just been attacked where no sides had declared war. we cant just sit around and say "damnit bin laden, whyd u do that, thats not fair" and do nothing about it...

I support the war and sending more troops in, there will be less bloodshed (at least on our side) if the troops are propperly trained, equipped, and supported.

[Alpha_Pasta]

Ahh..i'm writing an essay on why America lost the war at the moment. I'll post it up there when i'm finishhed.

It seems that one of the strongest reasons was the movement for peace at home - and the unwillingness of the soldiers to fight.

[MidnightRider]

Alpha, i beg to differ. I know many many vets from the Nam. They all were ready to fight when it was time to fight. But from the very start the US had the policy of "Mitilary Aid" not combat aid. US sent troops to "advise" South Vietnam troops and officers how to fight the VietCong. So soldiers in the feilds hands were tied when they werent listened to, and quite offten the VietCong were standing right beside US officers in the tents in guise of South Vietnamise. By the time LBJ sent troops in for real it was really to late to do any good as the political war had long since been lost. After US troops pulled out the border of North and South hadnt moved from the 48th Parallel where it began.

As for the "Peace Movement" going on at the time in the country, and the aint-war seniment ... What a discrace to any armmed servicemen. Those same "Peace Activists" would offten spit, attack, and otherwise degrade servicemen comeing home from the Nam with names like "Babykiller". Anyone that can burn their draft card and avoid serveing their country when called to do so has no right to berate a man that leaves his home and fam to do that very thing.

The term "babykiller" comes from a very horrid tactic the VietCong used. They would take children in South Vieatnam and pack them with explosives, send them running over to the GI's saying "Candy, candy, GI give me candy." When the child got close enough to a group of American soldiers ... bang. So many GI's would just shoot them before they got to close. Thats a hard thing to deal with everyday, something i hope i never have to see or be involved with.

Politicaly America got its ass kicked in Vietnam, but not from the lack of soliders wanting to fight, more like lack of support from the very country it swore to protect.

[yawaddah]

I think someone bite too big piece of the apple.. he hasnt just got it yet.. and will not before chokes to it. Btw why are some people in CoDboards only commenting/posting in non-cod-related threads..
My first and last post in this thread.

[Alpha_Pasta]

Such as?

[BritishBulldog1]

I think someone bite too big piece of the apple.. he hasnt just got it yet.. and will not before chokes to it.


That is, of course, a matter of opinion.


Btw why are some people in CoDboards only commenting/posting in non-cod-related threads..


codboards has an active off topic area and no doubt many people first came here when they got the game. Maybe they have now moved on from the CoD series, but enjoy this forum and it's other content and therefore wish to continue their participation. That is something that I like about codboards and would encourage it further.

BB1

[bartuc08]

this is someitnhg my mom sent me a while back, i found it very itneresting and something everyone seems to look oer...


If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in
the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a
total of 2,112 deaths, that gives a firearms death rate of 60 per
100,000 soldiers.
The firearms death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 for
the same period. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be
shot and killed in the U.S. Capitol, which has some of the
strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.


Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington.

[Alpha_Pasta]

That is a very interesting statistic.