Send More troops to Iraq?

[Liquid Blue]

I don't normally watch the news, but my mom had it on a little while ago, and the story about the 14 guys from the same marine unit getting killed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050804/...tkBHNlYwM3MTg-

One of the victims parent's were being interviewed, and they believed that there should either be more troops sent to Iraq to crush the insurgency, or that the troops should be pulled out alltogether.

What do you think? More troops should head out and join the ones dying, or do you think we should just pull out altogether? I know this topic has been done to death before, but I thought it wouldn't be too bad to talk about now, considering the marine story, and the Al-Queda threat about America getting out of Iraq or else more people will die.

Now I know some of you might want to say " we shouldn't do either, we should slowly fade our troops out of Iraq, taking everyone out at once would just cause more harm than good ". Well ok, my question to you is- do you think we would have the amount of losses we do if we had more people over there from the start? Or would we just have more casualties?

Also learned that at least 409 reservists (sp?) have died since they started getting sent over there. I'm assuming that number is somewhat correct, but I doubt the news would have the exact amount.

[Tone]

they dont tell you how many were screwed by depleated uranium and gulf war syndrome

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

The very least you can do is spell things correctly.

[AcidBomber]

"Send More troops to Iraq?"

HELL NO

[Torn Wing]

Send more people like t0ne to iraq.

[Sarien]

There are only two ways to deal with the situation that will work, at least if history teaches us anything. This long drawn out bullshit doesn't work. Winning hearts and minds doesn't work. If they're going to do it and do it right, then they need a very public military figure to run the place with an iron hand. Install martial law. Shoot anyone, man, woman, baby out past a curfew. Make it known that they get their country back when they can play nice, and if they continue to not play nice, things will get more harsh. Just like McArthur in Japan after WWII. If they're not willing to do it right, then they need to not even say anything. Just pack up and leave overnight. Leave a note that says "Later Fellas.. we're sick of dealing with you." and then don't return their phone calls.

[Theif of Time]

Winning hearts and minds doesn't work.

It does if they win them all. but some hearts and minds will not be won like cheap hookers on a wheel of fortune.

They (iraqi's) clearly do not want pickles (marines) or to die, and would much rather ride on their motorcycles.

[Lucon]

Well, in Battlefield 2, if you have more people on your team, it's easier to reduce the enemy's tickets more quickly in conquest mode, so yes, we should have as many people over there as possible.

[Kolar]

Nothing the US Army does now will make things better. They're deep in shit and the American population is going to have to deal with losses for the next 5-10 years because neither party will risk the poplitical fallout of such a move. There is no way for them to fully retreat soon without another dictator being installed anyways.

[Bioture]

Bill Maher once said something about a new law where "people who love the war must fight in it." I'm not very familiar with Bill or his rhetoric, but I think he may be on to something there.

[Tone]

they got so scared they destroyed all the weapons of mass destruction that the US sold them in the 80s all the night before invasion. also, dont forget, they are being liberated

[Squeezer]

You guys are fucking stupid.

We won the war 2 years ago.

Remember Bush on the USS Abe Lincoln.

He wouldnt lie to us.

[Subjugation]

I wish I could tell you. The problem is, the truth and details about what's happening in Iraq is being spun and controlled, or suppressed. So, it's almost impossible to make an educated guess when the pool of information is tainted.

Having said that, most of what was prognosticated by Rumsfeld has turned out to be spin, or just nowhere close to reality, so I whatever he says we should do, I think we should do the opposite. If Rumsfeld thinks we should send more troops, then I don't think we do. If he says we don't need more troops, then I think it's probably a good idea to send more. Kind of a fucked up way to make that decision, but it would be a safe bet, when looking at it from a pure "statistical probability" standpoint.

And of course, this is all predicated on the fact that we never should have been there in the first place. We went to war based on lies and politics.

[T3l Ca7]

U.S. definitely needs to send in more troops to Iraq. I mean maybe people will die in this war, probably they will. But for love, freedom, liberty ... and cheaper petrol.

I say, it is worth it!

P.S. as far as it is on American tax payers expense :fear:

[Theif of Time]

Did you know an electric bus stores energy from its braking process to re-use when it accelerates again? Ingenous. Petrol fueled vehicles do not have that kind of mechanism, couldn't be done in the same way (ie convert combusted fuel into noncombusted fuel).