i need some opinions here

im doing a debate paper and im supposed to get opinions on my topic so im asking your help

should the US send more troops over seas?

if the mission would get accomplished quicker and safer, yes.



ps. i'm, assuming you're referring to Afghanistan and Iraq.

No.
The US should not send more troops overseas, as it will hasten the eventual downfall of our empire.

Our society became a superpower because of our strong economy, but then we got paranoid, and our paranoia has made us increase our military strength at the expense of our economy. Without a strong economy, we will crumble like six day old bread... it happened to Rome, it can happen to us.

Also, the more troops we have overseas, the less troops we have here at home, and I miss my soldier-friends.

No.

thank u so mch thats great reasoning. i miss my soldier friends too.. and my soldier man

I could have done without the reference to "empire".

Send the troops over to the Netherlands! And bring boooze!

nope.

Oh, come on... just because we don't call it an empire, doesn't mean it isn't one...

Hell no.....it is obvious that the majority of Iraq does not want us there.....How many American lives have to be lost for the government gets a clue.....

well they will hardly go under them

I think it would have been a good idea to send more troops at the start of the Iraq War, and it's certainly reasonable to believe that more are needed right now, if only to provide additional security. I noted with great dismay that a pipeline was sabotaged on Nov. 2, and was costing millions per day in lost revenue for the Iraqi people, only because we didn't have enough people there to secure it.

If your paper extends to other brewing situations, I don't think we need to send troops to the Ivory Coast, but I do think that sooner or later, we -- and the rest of the world community -- may need to become heavily involved in the Sudan.

It should have been UN troops deposing the Taliban on moral grounds - way before 911. It should have been UN troops deposing Saddam. However, because of UN corruption and intransigence it was left to the allies.

It's time for the UN to stop pandering to dodgy regimes and start taking action. Starting with Mugabe.

That was very funny

they could use the Chunnel

I hate that guy. If the elections hadn't been totally tossed, MDC would have won...

this is the best, most succint description.

Just the ones who were dumb enough to vote for Bush.

No, dont send more troops. We are spending way too much money this country doesen't have.

I'm going to have to go with no.

I bet you get a really good grade for asking a bunch of anonymous porn site members this question. I would imagine we are probably about the most unqualified group of people imaginable to opine on this topic.

Maybe. There are some sharp people on this site. If the assignment was "ask some random people you know", then this is a good way to get feedback outside of the poster's sphere of friends. If the assignment was to research policy experts' theories, then yeah, I'm with you.

might be a xomewhat bad example. . . but how do you think Hitler got the HORRIBLE Geramn and World Ecomony going again. He created a strong military. If the people of your country wont spend money then the government has to. And to do that they create a strong military. In doing so the government give money to companys for weapons. IN turn more jobs are created. More jobs more money for poeple to spend. More money to spend more monre going into the economy. More money in the economy equals more jobs becasue the demand for goods is greater. Then everyone is happy.

So i say more military and faster action over in the Mid East. Get this stuff taken care of and get our loved one back home

no.