More troops in Iraq?

Post Reply New Topic

I know this is a US/UK centric question but it seems the only way we would make any progress in Iraq is to deploy more troops in Iraq. The Bush administration has seemed to have used up all it's political capital on Iraq, so this might be more of an issue we'd see in 2008. This move seems to be a gamble, because if we do this, there is the chance that we would only inflict more casualties and give the message that the Iraqi army would not be ready to defend itself anytime in the near future.

I mean, honestly I think we need to find a very carefully laid out plan that will require following every detail very closely, for us to pull our troops out without it back-firing on us... This can be done, if they follow a good game plan detail for detail. Maybe just green berretts (seeing as it is their job to train resistance fighters and allies).... and perhaps a few SAS. Other than that I think US and England should both pull as many of their troops. GBs and SAS, and some UN security forces could handle what they need to do, which is hold stuff down long enough to get the Iraqi government funtional and independant enough to handle their own affairs. That will take some time.
If we're going to deploy troops into combat, I think Korea might be a more dangerous threat internationally. Once we make a safe retreat from Iraq I doubt they'd be much of a problem.

War wasnt the answer - history routinely shows this yet everything is always done the same..

I'd invest more time into psychology and stay one step ahead of them in talks - That and dont send clueless, angry morons to do the talking that are as closed minded as the opponent

Supporting more troops from America fails to take into account the fact that we don't have any, short of a draft. Saying you support more troops WITHOUT saying that you support a draft is not honest, either with yourself, or others.

The military itself has stated they don't want a draft. The vast, VAST majority of troops voluntarily applied to join the army, and do not regret their decision. If you instate a draft, you'll get a bunch of America-hating leftists like those Berkely f***s in the army, and they'll be betraying army info to the militants or just shooting their own.

On the Berkley folks, probably not, likely because they flat out won't go. The idea of an all volunteer force is a good one, except when we get in situation like the one we are in right now - which, if Iraq was going to happen at all, it should have been tactical only, like the first Gulf War, instead of a victory/defeat model. We've more or less officially proven that kind of war is not possible, or even advisable, with a volunteer-only Armed Forces. Sadly, there is a large contingent of this current armed forces, especially those in the guard, that are not going to stick around long enough to move up the ranks once they are sure they won't be called up again. We may have to instate some kind of selective service in ten years or less, just to keep up with people who will not be returning, due to five or six tours in a row. Of course, there are some who will stick around, but there are quite a few who won't. How are we going to manage the future of the military? Should there be a limit to of tours that National Guard or the like can possibly be called up for? These are some issues we're going to have to contend with sooner rather than later.

While I don't agree with the USA bringing back the draft, we may have no choice. Things are gettong more and more hotter in Iraq and we ae looking at a war against Iran in the near future. We are going to need as many people as we can.

I will not partake in this fight until it steps on Canadian soil. I believe the only reason anyone has to fight anyone is when THEY are directly effected. I've yet to hear of any nation being invaded by Iraq or Iran and a 'pre-emptive strike' is no different from Nazi Germany smashing Poland.

If this was a TRUE threat:
a) Saddam would have been on trial in 1988 when he committed his 'crimes'
b) First gulf war wouldnt be labeled as 'First' because it would have been the only one. Leaving Saddam in power to be charged near 20 years later is the most illogical pile of crap I've ever heard

There is a fantastic reason barely any nation supported this war and you're witnessing 'why' first hand.

Honestly, as far as the U.S. goes, I couldn't care less about their situation but rather feel for the Iraqi's that have to deal with the mess invading their country made. I think the U.S. can b***h about freedoms all they want but any nation thats banning stuff left and right, spying on its own people, etc. shouldnt be listened to - the hypocrisy is just too thick.

No, I don't think we should have more troops in Iraq!

I don't want to hear about more people being killed!

We may have to if things get really bad. Thankfully we are getting the upperhand on things there despite what the liberal media is trying to spew. My cousin has said the same thing and he just came back from that country.

Since Canada is one of our largest debtors, and the Iraq War is entirely funded by defecit spending, you ARE in the fight. If Canada, or any of our other largest debtors, said no more money for the war, we'd probably have to pull out within DAYS.

Now, don't get me wrong, I believe you cannot pull out - This is the thing - America started this, they cannot leave and I do not support that. I didn't support them going in but now, for the sake of Iraqi's, America must stay, so do what you must but solutions end at your border.

As for Canadian funds making their way into your military, well, thats just more or less your spending habits - Canada didnt state 'go blow people up with our timber money' and we opposed it - Dragging us down because you think us buying stuff from you means we are supporting everything you kill is a bit of 'putting words/actions into our mouths'

Yes, great solution, we can stop this "associated slaughter" if we stop trading with America. Its Canadas fault because by spending money towards the states we are causing the war in Iraq. Sounds like the famous 'Blame Game'

It's most certainly not Canada's fault, and I did not mean to imply that at all - the choice is/was our responsibility and ours alone. That said, Canada does hold sway to this country that many here in the US do not even realize - in particular that Canada & Mexico are two of the largest owners of US debt. If the spigot was turned off, or even implied that it would/might be, we'd simply have no choice in the matter.

Last edited by tkmattson on 29 Nov 2006, 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If it weren't for Mr. Bush, we wouldn't have to do that!

Amen.

Of course!