Hi guys!
I figured that now I am a team member, I might as well post something. So I decided to test the waters with this. I was just wondering what everyone's opinions are of the troop surge Bush has proposed. I personally, am against it, but definatly don't let that discourage you from disagreeing. Thanks from inviting me!
-El
13 comments:
Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with the news lately . . . . what is the troop surge?
basically, bush's new plan to put a bunch of new troops in iraq.
i have to say i'm for it.
i think, in the long run, it was the wrong decision to go to iraq. there wasn't really any wmd's after all. but now that we're there, we can't really just leave and throw the whole country into chaos. i think we needed a better plan before we went. because it was just supposed to be 2 years.
Ok...right wing conservative over here...
I haven't been keeping up with it lately either, but I'm for it. Funny, this subject kinda came up yesterday too, with the war and everything. I totally support Bush in most of it, and agree with what my dad had to say yesterday: the only thing he doesn't agree with is pushing for total peace, because that region has been fighting since the Old Testament and that's not going to stop because America wants it to.
I was thinking yesterday about how blessed America is, and how we have been given this opportunity to share our blessings in the Middle East. Most people tend to view it as interference, but we have so much over here, and other places need help so badly.
I have to say I think it was the right decision to go to Iraq. There was a dictator there who needed to be deposed, and the people were being totally ruled by fear - they needed help to become free. I agree with Sam though that we can't just pull out now. We might have done part of our main job, but now we're trying to help them re-define their lifestyle, and we can't leave them while they're still partially dependent on us.
El, you're a member of The Village Square twice. I think I'm going to kick one of you off.
but that wasn't why bush said we were going. it wasn't until we got over there that we decided it was because of saddam. originally it was because of terrorists and wmd's.
don't get me wrong. saddam & co. was horrible. but that wasn't why bush said we were going over there. originally it was to protect us from terrorists.
how come we can go stop saddam's evil regime but can't say anything about darfur? *coughOILcough*
i'm mostly a conservative guy. but can anyone tell me something bush has done that's good for our country? where's the social security reform? where's the lawsuit reform? where's the tax cuts? bush has done squat for the u.s. i regret supporting him in the 2004 election and i really doubt he could get elected again.
You'd rather have Kerry in charge of our country? *shudders* I'm sorry but I strongly disagree. Bush is a strong Christian leader and is doing what he feels is best for our country - esp. in protecting it from terrorists, which has been the main problem and he's done a good job so far in beginning to counter it. What would you do faced with such huge-scale national crises?
i didn't say i'd rather have kerry. i'd rather bush hadn't been the republican candidate.
he has not done anything in the last four years for the u.s. if you want to say afghanistan and iraq were the right moves---fine. that was in his first term.
bush has broken all his promises and lost his trust with the american people. he has been a lame duck who is all talk and no walk. being a good christian does not mean being a good politician.
i think it would be interesting to see what kerry could have done for our country in the last four years. i'm not saying i'd like the results. for all his flaws, he had promises too, and i wonder if he would have broken them in the same way bush has.
sorry if i sound a little angry. i just am mad at myself i didn't see through bush earlier.
Hi guys!
Sorry I haven't been able to piost lately, but I am in Canada, so I kinda have an excuse.
Personally, I am strongly against this troop surge, but Unfortunatly, I am using a computer in a cafe right now, so I don't have time to argue about it. I will be home saturday though, so I will post some more on this later.
Glad to see I have a good conversation going. Too bad I can't participate :(
-El
Hello again1!
yay, another 5 minutes (or less) to write a post! Well, i can't read all of your arguments, but I can tell you why I think the troop surge is bad: First of all, it goes against the advice of almost all of Bush's generals, who he then fired. Basically all democrats are against it, and some republicans too. Also, that number of troops won't even secure Baghdad. It would take hundreds of thousands of troops to secure all of Iraq. Then , there is the question of why we are even there in the first place.
K, well, I have to go, hopefully see ya Saturday!
interesting. good reasons, elliot.
Hi guys!
Finally home!
Hopefully, the trip story will be up on my blog tonight or tomarrow.
Just wanted to respond to a couple of comments:
Verya, the thing is imposing peace and freedom on the middle-east is a very delicate operation. First of all, while I am totally against Saddam, he was a stabalizing influence in the middle east. He was one of the only Sunni leaders in the middle east, and hated terroroists as much as we do. Now that he is out of power, we have created a Shia crecent across the middle east, and emboldened Iran, who is also Shia. And we have created a massive Civil war in Iraq. This can't be solved by more troops. The dynamics are extremly complicated, and the only soulution is diplomatically, or with 100,000s of troops. Which we don't have. Even taking the 20,000 troops as it is drained our national gaurd, making it even easier for terrorists to attack us. Also, our nation responce in case of a disaster or invation is dramatically weakened.
And if we were going to take out every dictator who was opressing people, we would have a lot of work on our hands. How about North Korea, China, Iran (oh wait, we are going to war with them *sigh*)Darfur, and Saudi Arabi for starters!
The longer we stay in Iraq, the more men and women in our Armed Forces will die. The only way to end this crisis is to withdraw troops from Iraq, and perhaps set a timetable as to when it will happen and when the Iraqies need to be ready, with strong consequences if not obeyed.
One last thing Verya; I was just wondering what you had against Kerry. To me, he seems like he would be a much more competent leader than Bush has been. I agree with you, Sam, I haven't seen a single thing the Presendent has done well these last four years.
Anyway, see ya later!
-El
Post a Comment