OMG!!! You solved it! GOLD STAR FOR FATTY! And proof positive we should only listen to posters with genius IQ's!!! I've learned my lesson. But... Wait a minute... "Overwhelm" whom? The Sunnis? The Shiites? Or just anybody that's brown? Please advise, Fatty. The world is waiting.
Among other things. I have the backing of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and General Abazaid, who is resigning because of this very issue. What do you have to support your "more troops" theory?
and all along i though it was our mere presence in Iraq that has fostered so many new terrorists.... silly me.
While military intervention certainly isn't my area of expertise, it certainly makes sense to deploy more troops into a problem area until the situation is rectified. We are over there. We have made it our goal to fully liberate Iraq. If the situation was in the U.S., this is exactly how it would be handled. I'm not sure why this strategy would seem to make no sense to you. I mentioned it before. If Baltimore were taken siege by terrorists, we would employ this strategy. It is and should be the same way over there.
Oh, Fatty. I truly believed you were the way, the truth, even the light. Bummer. Liberate it from WHOM?! Do you honestly still believe the nonsense that we're just fighting Al Qaida over there? The country is fighting itself! Read a newspaper or something. Jesus. I repeat: Exactly whom are we supposed to overwhelm with all these imaginary troops? Do we overwhelm the Shiites? Or do we overwhelm the Sunnis? Or do we just kill em all and let Jesus sort it out?
It would appear we are fighting insurgents. As for how I would do it? I would send in more troops, and do it city by city. Again, I'm not a military expert, as I already stated. But while you're asking military strategies, what would you do? And run away with your tail between your legs is hardly a strategy.
And sitting around and let people get slaughtered with an incoherent undefined plan, like yours, is an even worse strategy - that's why the military experts oppose it. US troops in Iraq haven't been able to do anything as far as stablizing the country in 4 years. The only reason why I hear as to the fact that they can't leave is becuase they can't leave.
George is play right into the terrorist hands right? Or does that only apply if it's a Dem.? remember?
I have confidence in our generals. And this move certainly doesn't appear like their strategy is just sitting around waiting to get slaughtered.
It would appear we are mostly fighting insurgents if you only listened to Bush, Tony Snow and Fox News, I guess. The rest of the world understands we are sitting in the middle of a civil war of our own creation and that sending more troops there just means more dead troops. Especially since they don't know who to shoot until someone shoots at them and especially since, four years into the war, Bush still doesn't know what the mission is -- as the Joint Chiefs of Staff (who are military experts) said right before they said they unanimously oppose sending more troops. They, Colin Powell, James Baker and the bipartisan Iraq study group, Republican senator Gordon Smith (who said he could no longer support this war and that it might even be criminal), and nearly ninety percent of the American people think your idea is very, very dumb. I have said before that I favor a phased redeployment followed by a complete withdrawal. Call it whatever nanny nanny boo boo name you want. It would mean less Americans and less Iraqis would die for no better reason than Bush trying to prove he was right. This thread was started because the "decider" (who has yet to decide how to fight a war he started even after it has outlasted our involvement in WWII) went from saying "absolutely we are winning" last month to "we're not winning and we're not losing" this month. You can send ten million troops in -- they will still not know what to do because no one in the entire world has ever presented a viable strategy for victory there.
Wait a minute. The generals' oppose more troops. Obstensibly, because they know it wouldn't accomplish anything but inflame the situation further.
Wait a minute. You have confidence in our generals? But they said we shouldn't send more troops. You're making me dizzy.
So you have confidence in General Abaizid who is resigining rather than implementing the strategy you recommend? LOL, looks like I was late to the burn party. This is child abuse. I drop out.
So your thinking is that Bush and Bush alone decided to deploy more troops? Unbelieveable and impossible.
Dude! Read a paper! Or screw that. Just read the BBS! gifford1967 started a thread with the article in it! The headline is in the thread title and the thread is still on the front page! No, I don't believe that Bush and Bush alone decided to deploy more troops (though he is the decider). I believe that Cheney agreed with him. But forget what I "think." What I know is that the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously disagreed and that Abizaid (one of the few generals that has shown any optimism about the war) resigned in protest. This "I trust the generals" line is out of date. It expired when they all told Bush he was nuts. Catch up.
