More troops for Iraq

MrBishop

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
Bush Says U.S. Needs to Increase Size of Army and Marines and That Strategy in Iraq May Change

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Bush says the U.S. needs to increase the size of Army and Marines, and says strategy and tactics in Iraq will change to meet the situation on the ground. Bush also said Wednesday that insurgents in Iraq thwarted U.S. efforts at "establishing security and stability throughout the country" in 2006.

At a year-end news conference, Bush said the United States will "ask more of our Iraqi partners" in 2007, and he pledged to work with the new Democratic Congress, as well.

Bush sidestepped one question whether he would order a so-called surge of troops in Iraq as a first-step toward gaining control of the violent and chaotic situation there. "Nice try," he told a reporter who asked about his plans.

The Baker-Hamilton Commission recommended a quick buildup of troops as part of an overall plan to arrest what it called a "grave and deteriorating" situation in Iraq.

Bush also said the United States supports the creation of a unity government in Iraq.

The president opened the question-and-answer session by conceding the obvious things haven't gone well in Iraq, where the United States has lost more than 2,900 troops in almost four years of war, without quelling the insurgency.

"The enemies of liberty ... carried out a deliberate strategy to foment sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shia. And over the course of the year they had success," he said.

"Their success hurt our efforts to help the Iraqis rebuild their country. They set back reconciliation and kept Iraq's unity government and our coalition from establishing security and stability throughout the country."

Bush also explained a striking shift in position his statement on Tuesday that the United States is neither winning nor losing in Iraq, contrasted with his insistence at a recent news conference that it was "absolutely winning."

He said his earlier comments were meant to say that, "I believe that we're going to win, I believe that ... My comments yesterday reflected the fact that we're not succeeding nearly as fast as I had wanted."

Bush was asked whether he was like Lyndon Johnson, who had difficulty sleeping during the difficult days of the Vietnam War.

In response, the president said it was difficult knowing that "my decisions have caused young men and women to lose their lives." And yet, he said, the United States must prevail in the global war on terror and will.

It "is the calling of our generation," he said.

Most of the questions dealt with the war in Iraq, but he was also asked about the pregnancy of Mary Cheney, the openly gay daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney.

"I know Mary and I like her and I know she is going to be a fine, loving mother," said Bush. Neither he nor his questioner referred to Cheney's partner.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures
Click to expand...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2740418
 
Why didn't the professional soldiers (ie-top brass) ask for these troops before now? Why did the President have to order more troops? Does this mean our boys have the green light on Zaraqawi & his buddies? Can I get a Ginsu for Christmas?
 
Gonz said:
Why didn't the professional soldiers (ie-top brass) ask for these troops before now? Why did the President have to order more troops? Does this mean our boys have the green light on Zaraqawi & his buddies? Can I get a Ginsu for Christmas?
Click to expand...


1. They did, but Rummy had the President's ear, and played up doing this thing 'on the cheap'.
2. Because, at this point, those extra troops cost extra money. Can't get the troops without Congress getting involved somehow.
3. :shrug:
4. As long as you pay for it...:eek3:
 
1. They did, but Rummy had the President's ear, and played up doing this thing 'on the cheap'.
2. Because, at this point, those extra troops cost extra money. Can't get the troops without Congress getting involved somehow.
Click to expand...

The last is what I have been saying all along, the president may authorize it but takes congress to pay for it...
 
From what I've read the Troop increases are to bolster the Army and Marines (in general)any decision whether to use them in Iraq won't come until January.


But the president would not respond to questions about whether he plans to up the number of U.S. forces in Iraq, where approximately 140,000 U.S. troops are deployed. The administration has said previously that he plans to announce an updated strategy for Iraq in January.
Click to expand...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237739,00.html
 
Gato_Solo said:
Which I've been saying for quite some time...
Click to expand...





Yeah but as you also said on here, they wanted to keep it as cheap as they could. And IMO,it was not handled perfectly well, in fact it could have been better planned and whatnot (with an exit strategy, and to put forth some of the problems that can and did happen). Hopefully this will help clean up the mess we are in
 
More troops in Iraq is fine with me.

More bombs would be a better idea though.

We have superior manpower and superior fire power. Use em both, blow these assholes back to the third century, then bring our troops home to the hero's welcome they so richly deserve while the craters left behind fill with water. When any terrorist leaders who happen to survive surface elsewhere, give fair warning to surrnder them then repeat the above as necessary. Before ya know it, won't be nobody that'd hide em out. Then it's a turkey shoot.

What is so difficult about this?
 
It's a war, not a bridge club meeting. Wanna set up roadside bombs? Duck and cover. Let the survivors set up the democracy. You want a rapid troop withdrawal? Me too. See, we both win with my way. With yours, the only winners are little twisted men with beards who espouse religion. I thought you hated religion.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
It's a war, not a bridge club meeting. Wanna set up roadside bombs? Duck and cover. Let the survivors set up the democracy. You want a rapid troop withdrawal? Me too. See, we both win with my way. With yours, the only winners are little twisted men with beards who espouse religion. I thought you hated religion.
Click to expand...

If some country invaded the US would you be opposed to roadside bombing them or busting out your shotgun? If they were indiscriminately killing US civilians maybe you'd even be more inclined?

I'm not opposed to the our troops there protecting themselves and shooting roadside bombers but bombing a bunch of innocent civilians is just going to turn the general population against us more and ensure that if there is a democracy it will be one that hates us.

Just because I'm not religious doesn't mean I'm into Nazi-type ethnic or religious cleansing operations. I thought you were a follower of Jesus? Do you think he would approve of bombing innocent civilians?
 
war_invasion_poster.jpg
 
spike said:
If some country invaded the US would you be opposed to roadside bombing them or busting out your shotgun? If they were indiscriminately killing US civilians maybe you'd even be more inclined?
Click to expand...

If some country invaded the US & we went along with the plan & then Mexicans & Koreans came along & started planting roadside bombs, then yes, we should oppose it.

While I want Zaraqawi on a pole outside the Baghdad Airport, what, or WHO, I meant was Mutaq al Sadr. Go in & blow Sadr City to hell, wipe that area from the map. That'll get their attention.
 
Gonz said:
If some country invaded the US & we went along with the plan & then Mexicans & Koreans came along & started planting roadside bombs, then yes, we should oppose it.
Click to expand...

Ah, but the Iraqis didn't go along with the plan and it's Iraqis planting the roadside bombs for the most part.

Kinda like that "Red Dawn" movie.
 
spike said:
I thought you were a follower of Jesus? Do you think he would approve of bombing innocent civilians?
Click to expand...

Read your Bible and see how many times people were commanded by God to completely wipe out their enemies in combat.

So you would support the bearded twisted little zealots over your own nation's forces because a civilian got killed. Interesting.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Read your Bible and see how many times people were commanded by God to completely wipe out their enemies in combat.
Click to expand...

The Iraqis are not our enemies but go ahead nad show me some mandates from Jesus to perform ethnic cleansing.

So you would support the bearded twisted little zealots over your own nation's forces because a civilian got killed. Interesting.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything even similar to that. I think we were talking about indiscriminately bombing civilians. Something I don't picture Jesus condoning. Which means real christians wouldn't condone it.
 
spike said:
The Iraqis are not our enemies but go ahead nad show me some mandates from Jesus to perform ethnic cleansing.



I didn't say anything even similar to that. I think we were talking about indiscriminately bombing civilians. Something I don't picture Jesus condoning. Which means real christians wouldn't condone it.
Click to expand...

Read your Bible.

Judging others ain't your strong suit. I have no idea what might be, but I am certain it ain't that.


Give aid and comfort to the enemy all you like. Coddle up to their religious madmen until the cows come home. Folk like you are not new, enlightened, unique, or cute. Some day when you grow up you will realize how foolish this crusade of yours is. If you haven't been beheaded as an infidel first.
 
Gentlemen...why does this always have to become so personal? Can't we debate without such unpleasantness?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top