i need some opinions here

Shit, I forgot why I came to this site...sorry to bother with my blather. I'm off to see about a girl.

Oh yeah, my answer is no.

it wasnt to ask experts... why the fuck would i post on here if it wast lol.

we should begin replacing US troops with troops of UN's choice immediately.
the US should pay for the entire cost of this procedure (including the wages of the replacement soldiers).
the US should apologize to the Iraqi people and the world.

the only reason we are 'stuck' with our mistake is we believe the lie that 'we must finish what we start'. yes, we mustn't just walk away... but there are other options. but as long as US soldiers are in iraq, the problem will only get worse. only with a full withdraw and an apology can the wounds we are creating hope to mend.

hope you got a lot of paper

Where do Americans get the idea that they have a strong economy?

The American people could apply the same standards to the government representatives as the government representatives expect of them. The children of your senators and congresspersons should be drafted into the military until the same proportion of them have their children in harms way as the rest of the country. If Bush's kids were in the army units deployed in Fallujah, he would be much more determined to find a peaceful solution.


Of course that would never ever ever ever happen.

no sir, that would be a negative. Alliance is key, though half of America voted againt it.

Standard of living for most maybe?

Nay.

I have to say that the occupation of Iraq by the U.S. forces and the way in which they have conducted themselves has not done them any favours in terms of changing the Eastern/Global opinion of the US. It was because of Middle Eastern opinion of the U.S. that led to them being attacked in the first place. If that opinion has not improved or in fact become worse – due to at least Iraq being included into the equation as well as Afghanistan - what do you think will happen when the U.S. troops obtain the stronghold which they are striving for? Civilians who are left with a bitter taste in there mouth from loosing their loved ones will consider, if not plan, small cell retaliation strikes. This sounds very similar to why Afghanistan attacked in the first place.

The U.S. needs to change there tactics rapidly and do whatever necessary to obtain U.N. assistance. With a short turnaround toward U.N. control.

In short, no the U.S. should not deploy more troops. I think we’ve lost enough already!

You read my mind!
I nearly continued with the exact wording that you used.

Yes. Except there's ALL sorts of things that the government could be spending money on, that would boost the economy a lot more. Scientific research and infrastructure, to name two.

S5's right about this being a false dichotomy. What we should've done is not pushed the glass off the table to begin with. We can't bring 'em home now.

What's really annoying is that now that we're heavily invested in cleaning out the glass from this break, we don't have the resources to catch other glasses that are falling.

We need to bring our troops back as soon as we can reasonably extricate ourselves from Iraq, though. I suspect that'll be years, anyway. However, we ALSO need more troops overseas. Darfur could really benefit from some of our boots on the ground right now.

I never said we do... I said we did. Which is true. *nod*

personally, i think that enough american troops have lost their lives, and it breaks my heart to hear of anymore that have become casualties of war. i know that war in never pretty, but i think things have gotten so far-gone, and i think a lot of americans don't see a light at the end of the tunnel.

luckyride said:
if the mission would get accomplished quicker and safer, yes.
QUOTE]

The war is not going to end anytime soon. So I agree. I think if we have more then things will go faster and be better overthere. For people to say we should bring the troops home is like people talking about fantasies that are not going to happen anytime soon. Send more troops get it over as fast as possible, then start rebuilding the economy.

Would more troops antagonise the people who accept the troops there at the moment? Could other countries be persuaded to help Iraq re-build if US troops pull out, and would that be better?

I would hope that the people who accept the troops will appreciate more there to help. I think they would also like that the US is trying to end it quickly.

The other countries would probably only help if it benefits them. This war benefits the US so the US is fighting it. I think it would be great if US pulled out and other countries took over, but that isn't going to happen. The US isn't going to pull out and like I said about the other countries, they probably aren't going to help much if at all.

I'm not saying we should or shouldn't be at war. I saying we are there and it needs to end quickly.

Does the paper assignment also require you to list where these additional troops are supposed to come from? Just curious, because in all honesty your assignment is based on kind of a loaded question.

Theoretically speaking, I would definitely agree with the idea of sending in as many as an additional 100,000 soldiers or so. Now that Iraq has been invaded, it is in desperate need of a secure environment for damage control and reconstruction to take place. With unsecure, porous borders and neighboring states that don't necessarily have any interest in an Iraq serving as a base of operations for our CENTCOM (Central Command) forces, it's going to be very hard to get Iraq back on track. Without additional troops, we'll have to rely on some very intense behind-the-scenes arm-twisting that could have as adverse a long-term effect as the invasion of Iraq itself.

Shawna, Rome fell because of many reasons, but I believe that at the top of the list was a lack of interest for Romans to serve in her Legions in any significant number. Amazingly enough, non-Romans didn't do as good a job of protecting Rome in the last 2 centuries of her existence as Romans did for the first 5-6.

I disagree with this for only one reason.

The overwhelming majority of UN troops would not be of sufficient caliber and likely would not have good enough equipment. More importantly, however, it's highly unlikely that they could come in large enough numbers from a small enough group of nations to maintain a coherent chain of command or synchronize well in a hostile environment.

I know we're just theorizing here, ferret, and I'm sorry if I seem like I'm coming off too strong.

i think if the US agreed to withdraw from iraq, you'd see an amazing amount of support from the rest of the world in ensuring the situation was resolved in the most efficient and peaceful manner possible.

i also believe that a significant amount of hostilities would cease if the iraqi people saw us withdraw our forces. the invasion would be over. the troops replacing the our troops would not be continuing the invasion. they want the US out of their country, and i don't blame them. i'd have our administration out of our country too, hah.

Where's the precedent for that? Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia... these events do not support your claims. In two of those instances, almost no UN force assisted US troops in ground combat operations. In Somalia, US forces had to pull extra duty because UN forces didn't even bother to patrol areas they considered dangerous. In Bosnia, one allied nation even DELIBERATELY worked in DETRIMENT of the operations there. These are just some examples.

Without debating the justness of the operation (and I think you know I'm not necessarily rah-rah about it), I would say you're assuming a lot about how the Iraqi peoples' (and terrorists') attitudes would be in this event.

No thanks.