20,000 troops

HAMMERS38 · January 2007

did the usa really have to send an extra 20,000 troops into iraq?

personally i say pull out, let em fight among themselves for a bit then blanket bomb the whole place.

End_of_a_era · January 2007

What i don't get is we don't fight back : Just stand there and be shot and let them win because of a few civilians! How about we just bomb the shit outta Iraq and be done with that **** hole.

I mean people here are only using USA and UK as a excuse to cause abi of havoc, you wudnt get away with it here so why there?

modjoe86 · January 2007

I assume you're using sarcasm to show how ridiculous said viewpoint is. I agree about pulling out, but carpet bombing is about as useful as tits on a boar hog. Let the damn Iraqis have their civil war. It is inevitable. You can't come in and change a people's way of life. Democracy may be better, but in the end it won't work over there.

Bigdavo · January 2007

Care to explain how civil war was inevitable?

Great work fucking up a stable country.

outfctrl · January 2007

Originally posted by HAMMERS38

did the usa really have to send an extra 20,000 troops into iraq?
personally i say pull out, let em fight among themselves for a bit then blanket bomb the whole place.

21,000 Troops......We need to send more in my opinion.

Tertius · January 2007

Originally posted by Bigdavo

Care to explain how civil war was inevitable?
Great work fucking up a stable country.

I really don't want to presume to speak for him, but he said a civil war IS inevitable, not that it was from the beginning.

Given the different factions in Iraq, it should have been accepted as a given that there would be a power struggle of some sort there once Saddam was deposed. Allowing the struggle to become open warfare in the streets is where we failed, and we were warned that this would occur if we didn't take steps to prevent it. At this point I believe we no longer have the ability to control it. At best we can project enough temporary control to delay the process, and I doubt we can even do that much.

Ankua · January 2007

We do not need to send more troops just change the rules of engagement. Heck there is seven steps before you can fire back thats why we have a problem there. Oh ya, actually go after the bad guys when you have them engaged currently they just have to run into certain neighborhoods to get away. See we cannot go into certain areas and guess what? They know it too, people its the politicians again, stopping progress where it can be achieved.

Hojoko · January 2007

I say we all move to canada and be happy.

~Hojoko

Spy_HIppo · January 2007

you can't blame anyone truly for this i didn't want a war but apparently 3/4 of america did we attack too hard we seem like complete dicks,if we bomb it the UN will probably not stand for it and a couple will take us out, if we stand still and let them fight we die to not even a powerful courntry,and if we pull out we will seem weak and probably get attacked more. No matter what we will have a loss I think by attacking when they attack us and gaurding places is the best solution

Unknown · January 2007

Originally posted by Ankua
We do not need to send more troops just change the rules of engagement. Heck there is seven steps before you can fire back thats why we have a problem there. Oh ya, actually go after the bad guys when you have them engaged currently they just have to run into certain neighborhoods to get away. See we cannot go into certain areas and guess what? They know it too, people its the politicians again, stopping progress where it can be achieved.

QFT!!

You were there too huh? I didn't think it made any sense either. I mean WE took over that country, WE should go where ever the hell WE feel like. So what if Iraqis or the rest of the world is offended if we go into religious areas, nobody on Earth can stop us. The U.S. needs to grow a sack and finish the job. Screw the liberals.

Howdy, Stranger!

20,000 troops

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

20,000 troops

Comments