- 7,666
21,500 More US Troops Headed to Iraq
- Thread starter YSSMAN
- 63 comments
- 3,115 views
- 23,800
- Philippines
Unfortunately, according to the news, that's exactly what they want to do. Unfortunately, again, a lot of people want just that, to force Bush to pull out. It's the main reason they elected those people into office.
The ball's in Bush's court, now. He's got to convince Congress he's got a definite plan of action... show them that he's sending soldiers there to win a war, not to fight a costly police action that the public doesn't like.
- 3,425
If you want to search the page six news to find all the success that the asault in Bahgdad is having , then you can see that not only was ot a good call but a well thought out plan of action , and BUSH didn't wait for congress to play with them selves...he just went and did it then explained his actions to congress ..actions THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.
Thats the military side...so far so kick ass.
The political side is another matter entirely ...and its up to the Shiite aand Sunni leadership , ultimately as to the plans success or failure.
Very quietly the US has surrounded Iran with battle groups and positioned troops to intercept them from comming into Iraq.
Attacked and captured Iranians IN Iraq .
Put Extreme pressure on Syria and potured the military to take controll of the Border...and present Syria with a threat of retalitory strikes on convoys or any shipments of men or nmaterial into Iraq.
Why isn't this big news ?
Why isnt the fact that the US and Iraqi forces destroyed the Mahdi militia and arrested and killed most of its leaders in 48 hours NEWS ?
GOOD &^%&^%$! Question...its a success and we cant HAVE that .
And according to the RESULTS they have proven they sorely lack not only the will but the cajones to even ATTEMPT to stop the funding...like I said before...deserting American troops WHO WANT TO WIN...will NOT get you elected. Nor will it keep you in washington...
Hey the Dems DO want to win the Presidential election one day.
Too bad Bush and his plan is working. So far...anyway...we will see..again its up to the Iraqis in charge..and they do not impress me at all.
Thats the military side...so far so kick ass.
The political side is another matter entirely ...and its up to the Shiite aand Sunni leadership , ultimately as to the plans success or failure.
Very quietly the US has surrounded Iran with battle groups and positioned troops to intercept them from comming into Iraq.
Attacked and captured Iranians IN Iraq .
Put Extreme pressure on Syria and potured the military to take controll of the Border...and present Syria with a threat of retalitory strikes on convoys or any shipments of men or nmaterial into Iraq.
Why isn't this big news ?
Why isnt the fact that the US and Iraqi forces destroyed the Mahdi militia and arrested and killed most of its leaders in 48 hours NEWS ?
GOOD &^%&^%$! Question...its a success and we cant HAVE that .
And according to the RESULTS they have proven they sorely lack not only the will but the cajones to even ATTEMPT to stop the funding...like I said before...deserting American troops WHO WANT TO WIN...will NOT get you elected. Nor will it keep you in washington...
Hey the Dems DO want to win the Presidential election one day.
Too bad Bush and his plan is working. So far...anyway...we will see..again its up to the Iraqis in charge..and they do not impress me at all.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Been away too long.
The thing is... we're there to stop insurgents inside the country. While, yes, intercepting Iranian and Syrian agents within the country would be permissible (I wonder if Iran has the decency not to protest that...
), posturing against the Iranians might not be right.
Bush really has to sell this war to Congress. If they think he wants to end the Iraqi insurgency, they may back him. If they think he's spoiling for another fight, they may not. Again, I'm all for the war to end the insurgency... I just think that scaring us with Iranians is not the right way to sell it.
They're reviewing the situation right now, and trying to figure out if the increase of troops will cover it. I'd say it won't. More troops are needed, but whether it should be American troops, it's hard to say. Apparently, Congress would be willing to continue funds if they see an overall strategic plan that will resolve the situation, but are not willing to pay for a costly, long-term police action.
It will be difficult. Eliminating individual militias is addressing merely a symptom of the conflict, but not its root cause. As long as there's strife within the government itself and amongst factional leaders, that's not going to be enough.
The thing is... we're there to stop insurgents inside the country. While, yes, intercepting Iranian and Syrian agents within the country would be permissible (I wonder if Iran has the decency not to protest that...
), posturing against the Iranians might not be right.Bush really has to sell this war to Congress. If they think he wants to end the Iraqi insurgency, they may back him. If they think he's spoiling for another fight, they may not. Again, I'm all for the war to end the insurgency... I just think that scaring us with Iranians is not the right way to sell it.
They're reviewing the situation right now, and trying to figure out if the increase of troops will cover it. I'd say it won't. More troops are needed, but whether it should be American troops, it's hard to say. Apparently, Congress would be willing to continue funds if they see an overall strategic plan that will resolve the situation, but are not willing to pay for a costly, long-term police action.
It will be difficult. Eliminating individual militias is addressing merely a symptom of the conflict, but not its root cause. As long as there's strife within the government itself and amongst factional leaders, that's not going to be enough.
