Do you agree with Bush's plan to add troops?

[Guest echtrae]

This is a poll on msnbc asking if people agree with Bush's plan. Go and place a vote.

Do you agree with President Bush's plan to add 21,500 troops to those now in Iraq?

[redsliver]

3/10 people agree? that scares me

[Jyet]

Adding more troops now only increases the number of soldiers in harm's way and delays the end of the conflict. This is like Vietnam: a big build-up of soldiers that's supposed to put an end to the insurgency. What's next, Iraqization and, years from now, frantic evacuations of the Green Zone by helicopter as militias storm our embassy? The longer we stay, the more insurgents we breed and the less credible the Iraqi government looks. We should start leaving now, not start sending more troops.

[quamp]

Quite frankly, I think the only reason why Bush is doing this is that he's too foolish to swallow his pride.

Either that, or he thinks this will reduce the US population. Yea, get rid of a bunch of people so that you can recruit the homeless into the military.

ETA: of the 357,390 responses so far, 72% are opposed to the surge, and 28% favor it.

Edited January 18, 2007 by quamp

[Charging Handles Forward]

All I know is that the troop surge means that my brigade and I leave for Iraq two months earlier. Immense gay!

[Guest .:Deathbringer:.]

All I know is that the troop surge means that my brigade and I leave for Iraq two months earlier.  Immense gay!

Put on your best sequin shirt, that flashy scarf and with a flick of the wrist, insta-gay!

I don't really support that surge... But that's all to Bush's sole discretion...

And his judgement thus far has... waned.........

Not to mention he hasn't really avoided distress nor embarrasment for his discisions or his actions...

[Guest Big Samurai]

I'm with Jyet. This is Vietnam 2.0, and throwing more soldiers at the problem is like throwing poop at the bathroom stall door after it's already been blown off.

Best wishes for your health and safety, Charging; come back to us alive!

[StoryJunkie]

and in one piece.

One Piece. (Ah, Luffy, where have you been all my life?)

[Guest Gaara]

All I know is that the troop surge means that my brigade and I leave for Iraq two months earlier. Immense gay!

Yeah I know what you mean. We leave this year to. It doesn't really matter if I agree with it or not, it won't change the deployment date currently glaring over my head.

[Guest Agaib]

I don't support the troop surge either. I didn't support invading Iraq from the very beginning, it just reeked of trouble. This is My reason.

I strongly believe that it is virtually impossible to just go into a country and provide stability without some sort of moral platform to stand on. Attempts at restoring peace to countries undergoing civil war, (such as Spain before WWII, Somalia, and Vietnam to name a few) were less than successful. I think that the basic reason lies in the general mentality of the human population.

I think its safe to assume that when put together as a whole, humans are selfish. Despite the existence of a few great souls and unselfish people, when you take it all in at once, people care more about their own backs. Evolutionarily, this is advantageous. I've noticed that the only time humans put aside their selfishness and differences is when a person or group of people becomes aggressive. This also makes sense evolutionarily, if your neighbor is being attacked, might you be next?

Unfortunately, this means that no matter how horrible the tragedy. No matter how "right" one side may be. The aggressor is the one who fosters resentment. The reason the world was able to stop Hitler during WWII was for one reason. He attacked the people around him. If Hitler had committed a Holocaust type genocide within his own country, no one would have been able to stop him.

Unfortunately, a preemptive strike has done the opposite for us. While invading Afghanistan fulfilled the terms of not being the initial aggressor, Iraq does not (You'll notice that hardly anyone outside of the Middle East disliked us for invading Afghanistan and even in the Middle East no one really came to Afghanistan's aid). In Iraq we are the first ones to attack. We are the aggressors. Nations behave much in the same way as little children. In the end, the only thing that matters to them is "who started it."

We're not fixing anything. We need to set a definite time-line for troop withdrawal. We need to put tough pressure on the people to will a government into existence. The only way we can come out of that place without doing more damage to our "moral" position is by setting expectations and time lines. We need to make a commitment to Iraq, that commitment should have an expiration date.

[mrkilloper1]

an easy way to fix the prob of iraq.

1. Take the political corectness and politicians out of the war

2. let the soldiers already there do there job. Over there now days we have to pussyfoot around with every terrorist aka insurgent who we come in contact with. Cant even shoot the sob without some one looking over your shoulder

3. Media black out. every time the media reports something which is usually pro insurg they blaire it everywhere and next thing you know every idiot with a rifle want to copy what was shown on tv. Example cnn shows sniper video on us troops. next thing you know theres a 200% increase on sniper attacks.

4. No more back seat generals, aka every senator and his dog.

[Guest Yhitzak]

nikolatesla1

the Iraqi 'insurgents', i.e. almost the entire population of the weary and violence wracked country, are going to look at these troops and think to themselves: The American people are trying to destroy us. Over 34,000 of us were killed last year alone, and yet they're sending in MORE troops instead of withdrawing as they promised to do over four years ago? This will only make all those crazy sectarians with bombs even angrier, and they'll kill more innocent people in retaliation. We're so screwed. And they'll be right. We took out a dictator - but a dictator who was helping to keep a fractured country stable. Now that we've de-stabilized the situation, all these religious sects are happily slaughtering each other in the most appalling ways. And the country's infrastructure is even more shoddy and broken down today than it was when Saddam was in power. This is every Americans fault, drankly. We either put him in power, or we didn't protest enough or in enough numbers when he wanted to start this thing in the first place. I fully accept my part of the blame. This mess is ours to deal with. Although frankly I can't see a good way to clean it up anymore, now that its gone this far.

You have hit the nail so *squarely* on it's head... words fail me. Thank you is about all I can say.

About the poll, I found the manner in which the question was posed to be rather... interesting. Here's a direct quote from the poll site:

Do you agree with President Bush's plan to add 21,500 troops to those now in Iraq?  * 357889 responses 

Yes. The United States can still win this thing militarily; a sizable increase in troop strength, and help from the Iraqis, will turn the tide

28% 

No. Define "win." After nearly four years, neither our country nor Iraq is better off. More troops going out means more body bags coming back.

72% 

The point I found most interesting is that under the "Yes" option, it specifically states that the Iraqi people are necessary for the victory. So far as I can tell, there's more Iraqis opposing our presence in their country than there are people wanting to fight for America's cause.

Unfortunately, this poll and anything akin to it don't really matter. Nothing changes as a result of these polls. Even if the whole of the American population were to stand up and demand an immediate end to this war, nothing would change because it's not up to the American people, and it never has been. This war has -from the very beginning- been determined by senators, congressmen, and the president and his staff. This war has been determined by people who don't have to fight in battle, who never have fought in battle, and are not directly affected by the battle. When all is said and done, our political/governmental officials can go home with a life-long paycheck and the satisfaction that they did their 'public service.' Meanwhile, the rest of us who oppose the war are called unpatriotic for our lack of support for the troops who are 'defending our freedom.' I support the troops; I just think that they shouldn't be in a place where their presence is causing more harm than good (and this goes for both sides, the Iraqis and the others there, because it's not limited to American forces). I think that the best way to show support for the American armed forces is to pull them out of this suicidal situation. Throwing a Dixie-cup of water on a burning building is about as effective as adding more troops to the situation in Iraq.

Sadly, there is no easy solution to this problem, because this problem ultimately concerns the needs of people, both Iraqi and otherwise. The Iraqi people needed a leader who was capable of leading them. I'm not a fan of Saddam Hussein by any stretch of the imagination, but as nikolatesla1 pointed out, he at least kept things under control. He was a dictator, but as far as dictators go, he wasn't even in the top five of bad dictators. Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, the Ayatollah all lived their lives out in comfort (must really suck to be on house arrest when your house is a fucking mansion), while the American government stood aside and did nothing. War criminals throughout the ages have gotten away without punishment or repercussions for their actions. This war was never about freedom for *anyone*; this war has been -from the beginning- about polls, numbers, and money. Anyone who believes otherwise has their head in the sand. Until we all (the world over, from political officials to the lowest commoner) acknowledge that we all have needs, this war is *never* going to end.

The cardinal problem with this war is the difference between mind-sets. Muslims, Iraqis, Middle Easterners do not think the same way that Americans think. They have a different set of ideals as dictated by thousands of years of human history, as well as by environmental influences, the same as Americans. We -as different cultures- have different needs, wants, and concerns. Imposing our Western ideals on a place that can't comprehend those ideals isn't just a waste of time, it's a waste of effort and of life. Maybe we should (as an American force) spend more of our time and money and efforts on improving communications and relationships on a more diplomatic level, instead of throwing more ammunition onto the fire.

[AmyMcClair]

The point I found most interesting is that under the "Yes" option, it specifically states that the Iraqi people are necessary for the victory. So far as I can tell, there's more Iraqis opposing our presence in their country than there are people wanting to fight for America's cause.

I have to disagree with the last statement there. Ever since the Iraqi military has started patrolling the streets with American and Coalition forces, the Iraqi people in general have been more supportive of our efforts.

I think ultimately, we should let the military decide with the Iraqi government what is best for Iraq. Take the politics out of it.

There are plenty of politicians who very recently voted to cut funding for the war and in the same breath stated that our troops didn't have the supplies they need to win this war. If we give them the money to get the supplies they need, they will have what they need to do their jobs. Otherwise, you have a walking contradiction.

[mrkilloper1]

when it comes down to it its not funding it how whether or not we our aloud to do our jobs properly. Plus more troops will go over there anyhow to relieve the previous troops. In the mean time a troop increase makes sense to secure zones in Iraq because the Iraqi soldiers are made over night let alone an army. Hell were still training the afghanis and they will probably take 4 to 7 years to train them properly. The problem in Iraqi unlike afghanistan is we have people who are trying to rush things which will hurt in the long run. You can put Iraqi soldiers on the street but it doesn't mean anything if they cannot shoot or even work as a team. When it comes down to it troop increase will be up to the president and the generals. What civilians and senators think as done in this poll will have no effect on whether or not a troop increase will happen. The only thing the senate can do is cut funding and even though several senators have been harping it to their constituents i doubt their stupid enough to do it. Its political suicide.

[Guest Yhitzak]

To take the politics out of this war would be to end the war. This war has been -from minute-go- about nothing *other* than politics. The Bush Administration throws the word, 'freedom,' around like it's a hot-potato. Contrary to what a great deal of people apparently think, this war isn't, wasn't, and won't ever be about freedom for anyone. It's also not about what is best for the Iraqi people; if it were, someone somewhere would have realized that sometimes the solution is worse than the problem. Case in point: Saddam Hussein was a nasty individual, but he kept his country afloat. Just so that my statement isn't misinterpreted, I should state the following: tyrants are bad for people (on the whole). Sometimes, deposing a tyrant causes a worse situation for the people (on the whole) than leaving that person in power.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: Americans (as a people) have no concept of what it means to be a Middle Easterner *or* a fundamentalist Muslim. The geography of the Middle East is so vastly different from the geography of America, we have very little in common. Even though we don't like to acknowlege this fact, it remains true: environment affects and influences the way we live *and* the way that we (as humans) think. Until this effort becomes diplomatic (as opposed to violent), there will be no improvements.

[AmyMcClair]

To take the politics out of this war would be to end the war. This war has been -from minute-go- about nothing *other* than politics. The Bush Administration throws the word, 'freedom,' around like it's a hot-potato. Contrary to what a great deal of people apparently think, this war isn't, wasn't, and won't ever be about freedom for anyone. It's also not about what is best for the Iraqi people; if it were, someone somewhere would have realized that sometimes the solution is worse than the problem. Case in point: Saddam Hussein was a nasty individual, but he kept his country afloat. Just so that my statement isn't misinterpreted, I should state the following: tyrants are bad for people (on the whole). Sometimes, deposing a tyrant causes a worse situation for the people (on the whole) than leaving that person in power.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: Americans (as a people) have no concept of what it means to be a Middle Easterner *or* a fundamentalist Muslim. The geography of the Middle East is so vastly different from the geography of America, we have very little in common. Even though we don't like to acknowlege this fact, it remains true: environment affects and influences the way we live *and* the way that we (as humans) think. Until this effort becomes diplomatic (as opposed to violent), there will be no improvements.

I agree with you on the violence thing. Nothing will be solved if the violence continues. I also agree that sometimes the solution is worse than the problem, but I also believe that this can work given time and resources so long as the Iraqi people want it to.

I know that Iraqis are not Americans and that their ways of life are fundamentally different from ours, but so were the Russians. We helps depose the dictator there. Things were rough for a while, but they got better. If we give it enough time and energy, Iraq can be the same.

As for your statement about Saddam being a nasty person. That is the understatement of the century. Saddam was a modern day Hitler. He performed genicide. Hitler kept Germany going too. Should we have kept our noses out of Germany? When WWII ended, Germany was worse off than it had been before the war. Should we have left Hitler to his mechanations?

[dazzledfirestar]

I know that Iraqis are not Americans and that their ways of life are fundamentally different from ours, but so were the Russians. We helps depose the dictator there. Things were rough for a while, but they got better. If we give it enough time and energy, Iraq can be the same.

Ummm... okay. Could you clarify what exactly you're talking about here and which horrifying dictator you mean?

And as for things being better in Russia... don't kid yourself. Eastern Europe is still a mess, and it's been how many years since the Americans "liberated" that part of the world? Give me a break. A country that can't take care of itself has no business dealing with everyone else's problems.

PS I do not mean this as a slight to any American citizens, or your millitary. I simply (as an outsider) don't agree with certain politics and revisionist histories that seem to be popular throughout your country at this time. Thank you. Please don't invade us next.

[dazzledfirestar]

*Pats Nik on the shoulder* You could always move to Canada!

[Guest Agaib]

As for your statement about Saddam being a nasty person. That is the understatement of the century. Saddam was a modern day Hitler. He performed genicide. Hitler kept Germany going too. Should we have kept our noses out of Germany? When WWII ended, Germany was worse off than it had been before the war. Should we have left Hitler to his mechanations?

As I said earlier, parrallels between Hitler and Saddam Hussein are useless. The Axis attacked us, very few people hated us for reacting. Saddam did not attack us, a lot of people hate us for attacking.

It has nothing to do with who was worse and who did what. Stalin killed many more people than Hitler, but he's not considered an icon of evil because he was not an aggressor against other countries in the same way the Axis was.

It doesn't really matter who did what to what people. It only matters who 'started it.'

[Guest Alien Pirate Pixagi]

Hah. Unless I cross the border on foot and sneak into Canada as an illegal immigrant, I don't have the proper skills to be able to emigrate. Believe me, I started looking into the requirements two years ago.

Yeah, same here TT__TT

Perhaps Australia...

[dazzledfirestar]

Yeah, same here TT__TT

Perhaps Australia...

Australia's nice too... but I'd go for New Zealand. They've got some interesting political things going on down there!

[StoryJunkie]

hey guys, you knew the second those towers came down it was a declaration of war. I knew Bush would find a way to make restitution, and to seek justice is not a bad thing. The problematic thing is Bush is some kind of weird puppet front man or something, since he seems to have the drive for power, but the mental capacities of Pinky, rather than of the Brain.

Diplomatic measures were thrown to the wind when those guys walked out of the peace-talks in Egypt about 2 weeks before the attack on NY. Take a look at this as if you have a bird's eye view. I'm not condemning nor endorsing the ambitions or events that have already occured, but if you look closely there seems to be a malignant intelligence out there that wants us all to fail, to suffer, to eat dirt.

It doesn't matter which country you are from. Blood will be paid with blood. It the human way, and it must run its course, much the same way an illness must run its course in a body.

The source of irritation is the Middle East, but this is also a Holy Ground. It is the ultimate connundrum. For those caught up in its forces, you have my prayers and best wishes that you survive. For those left behind to mutter, mutter well, and try not to bear grudges.

My opinion? Terrorists have been dealt with by the European community for a very long time. Americans cannot cure this disease. They are already caught up in it, and it will not end quickly. It will wear down the resources of this continent until we all are left with nothing.

If nothing is my prospect, then nothing is what I love.

[Guest echtrae]

You are correct SJ. War was declared, but by who?

[WotanAnubis]

You are correct SJ. War was declared, but by who?

Well, if we must tie Al Qaida (I spelt that wrong, didn't I?) to any particular country, it would have to be Afghanistan.

And, quite frankly, there aren't very many people who believe invading Afghanistan was wrong. They may disagree about the handling of the invasion, but the invasion itself...

Heck, even I, a pacifist through and through, don't mind the fact there are still Dutch troops in Afghanistan.

That said...

This topic was about Iraq, wasn't it?

[Guest echtrae]

You are correct. The topic was about Iraq and if more troops should be sent there. Yet, SJ dragged the topic of the towers in. Which even the US government finally admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with the attack upon the towers.