Isn't Bush's new strategy of embedding troops & escalating troop numbers great! It worked so well in Vietnam!

Question

You really got to hand it to Bush. Who would have ever thought to copy LBJ's strategies in Vietnam for Iraq? The only one capable of that is our pride and joy, W!!! Let's give him a hand for such forward and original thinking!!

Answer 1

The Democrats plan for Iraq is to stop nation building, get our troops out of the middle of a civil war and get back to fighting the terrorists



The Bush plan is to waste billions on a pipe dream of bringing democracy to people who don't want it , throwing our troops lives away in a senseless ethnic war that creates terrorists.



The Democrats see the national interest of America to be fighting terrorism, not propping it up as Bush is doing.



The idea that Mr. Bush has put the national interest of the United States into the hands of Mr al Malaki and the Shiite Arabs who hate us is a prime example of the ineptitude and incompetence with which the GOP has squandered our ability to direct our own future.

Answer 2

Okay, you will be able to tell from all my previous answers, that I fancy myself of a more liberal mentality on most subjects, and especially when it comes to this war. I've been incredibly critical of the administration, and of the surge. I heard something last night that made me reserve judgement for a while at least.



Last night I was watching Charlie Rose. His guest was John Burns, a writer for the NYT. He's been in Baghdad since before the war began. He's incredibly knowledgeable on the subject of troop levels and strategies we've been employing in the region. He thinks the troops will actually make a substantial difference. One half of the troops on the ground in Iraq have been engaged in force protection (that's soldiers protecting other soldiers, mainly in the green zone and at Camp Victory), with the new troops only a fraction will be involved in force protection, so that means these troops will actually be making a difference in the neighborhoods. This make a lot of sense to me and it gives me a bit more hope. He also concedes that Iraq is in a constant state of flux, so anything can change on a dime. I think the interview is REALLY worth a look at. He's no Republican shill, and since he's been there on the ground everyday since before the war, he's got a great perspective. He's incredibly tempered in his predictions and most certainly is able to play devil's advocate.

Answer 3

Well if you are comparing wars, do not leave out the facts that the average age for Vietnam troops were 19, and average age now is 26. The Vietnam people and military suffered tremendous causalities of over 2mil, while the US stood close to 600k American soldiers loss their lives in Vietnam. But, the biggest shame was when America turned their backs on their own, when our men and women returned home from Vietnam. The US Military are commands, followed orders, and results(good or bad). There is no reason to use any of these lives dedicated to our benefit, no matter if our Commander In Chief made bad decisions, to way unfairly towards any military personnel, we are just trained to follow orders, without feeling or conscience.

Answer 4

Congress prevented a win in Vietnam. Congress is pressing against this war. When actually congress all want this war to continue. War breeds war and a contempt for all that is holy or can be called holy. Hence, holy war is a misnomer. There are casualties of war and for the American people to think they have a say in the matter is worse. We are the people and instead of backing of leaders to show the world we have backbone and support our entrusted servants we rather complain about their lack of resolve. back out now and it will be worse for us in the long run. In one hundred years we will still be there. Iraq is under a Constitution and they are use to a man running their country. It will take time, and sometimes God and healing take time.

Answer 5

EDUCATING YAHOO IDIOTS



The American people have both McCain and Guiliani each running better than 20% ahead of Hillary and 30% ahead of B. Hussein Obama even in NATIONWIDE POLLS! That means neither Democrat can win the Electoral college.



What was the question again? Oh, 100,000 dead troops v. 3,000. Do Math much?

Answer 6

That's funny, considering the current plan is exactly what all the Democrats were asking for 6 months ago. You know when increasing troop numbers also worked well? In WWI and WWII.

Answer 7

Condi Rice testified it was an "augmentation" not an escalation. that had senators just moaning.

Answer 8

The best solution for Iraq is actually to "stay the course" and build permenant bases to use a reminder to all terrorists in the region that they can't act without consequences.



20,000 is a pittance.



We need 200,000, and we need to convince liberals that terrorism is actually a bad thing and that fighting it is necessary in order to do something we like to call "winning".

Answer 9

Wasn't LBJ a democrate?

Answer 10

As much as you would prefer to go back to the days of Woodstock and hippie love, you need to face the fact that

"Bush Is Right."

therightbrothers.com