What if the solution to Iraq is more U.S. Troops? What's the reaction?

2006-10-30 05:23:04

#1

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6805|San Diego, CA, USA

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165667,00.html

John Mccain said that we need more troops in Iraq. Jim Baker is part of a commision to advise the President of the United States on how to win the Iraq War. What if their suggestion is to add more troops?

My question is what would be everyone's reaction be?

2006-10-30 05:24:16

#2

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6812

Pray you don't get drafted?

2006-10-30 05:27:22

#3

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6805|San Diego, CA, USA

CameronPoe wrote:
Pray you don't get drafted?

I would have no problem if I was drafted. I'm bored right now...it would be a change of pace.

2006-10-30 05:50:31

#4

JahManRed: wank; +646|6885|IRELAND

They say its just like paintball. Have fun with the draft.

2006-10-30 06:01:09

#5

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6812

Who's to say that there is a solution anyway?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-10-30 06:01:44)

2006-10-30 06:21:19

#6

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6838|SE London

Harmor wrote:
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165667,00.html

John Mccain said that we need more troops in Iraq. Jim Baker is part of a commision to advise the President of the United States on how to win the Iraq War. What if their suggestion is to add more troops?

My question is what would be everyone's reaction be?

I wouldn't put too much faith in a source from Fox news. Especially when General Sir Richard Dannatt (head of the British armed forces) has publicly stated that troops should be withdrawn from Iraq as quickly as is reasonably possible, that their presence is exacerbating the situation.

More troops in Iraq are the last thing anyone wants. More troops in Afghanistan would make much more sense.

2006-10-30 06:22:59

#7

Hurricane: Banned; +1,153|6887|Washington, DC

What we need is better tactics. Or better yet, pull out. It's not so much fighting a losing battle as it is fighting a stalemate. We could just bomb the shit out of the country, but too many civilian casualties.

I wish this was a conventional war. Then we could be free to do tons more stuff.

2006-10-30 11:51:07

#8

Spearhead: Gulf coast redneck hippy; +731|6947|Tampa Bay Florida

Draft everyone. When the millionares sons and daughters begin to get killed and mutilated by insurgents maybe they will finally start speaking against the war.

2006-10-30 11:52:58

#9

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6702|The Land of Scott Walker

CameronPoe wrote:
Who's to say that there is a solution anyway?

That's the spirit! Total negativity! That will fix everything!

2006-10-30 12:37:55

#10

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6812

Stingray24 wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
Who's to say that there is a solution anyway?
That's the spirit! Total negativity! That will fix everything!

It is quite conceivable that the only ones who can 'fix' everything are Iraqis or the main players in the general middle east. Us westerners aren't trusted, are culturally different and are exacerbating the violence - why would anyone believe that we could have a solution?

PS One man's negativity is another man's realism.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-10-30 12:38:36)

2006-10-30 12:59:13

#11

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7029|PNW

CameronPoe wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
Who's to say that there is a solution anyway?
That's the spirit! Total negativity! That will fix everything!
It is quite conceivable that the only ones who can 'fix' everything are Iraqis or the main players in the general middle east. Us westerners aren't trusted, are culturally different and are exacerbating the violence - why would anyone believe that we could have a solution?

PS One man's negativity is another man's realism.

Although they didn't seem to do much better in history, left to their own devices.

2006-10-30 13:00:06

#12

GATOR591957: Member; +84|6884

As I've said before. Let the Iraqi's vote on whether they want us there or not. If they want us there, then let's do what needs to be done, and get the hell out. Whether it's 150,000, 200,000, or 250,000 troops. Let's quit pussyfooting around and either do it right, or get out. We've endured enough loss over this fiasco.

Last edited by GATOR591957 (2006-10-30 13:01:37)

2006-10-30 13:01:26

#13

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6812

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:

That's the spirit! Total negativity! That will fix everything!
It is quite conceivable that the only ones who can 'fix' everything are Iraqis or the main players in the general middle east. Us westerners aren't trusted, are culturally different and are exacerbating the violence - why would anyone believe that we could have a solution?

PS One man's negativity is another man's realism.
Although they didn't seem to do much better in history, left to their own devices.

The world is a big wide weird and varied place. Their societies haven't evolved at the same pace as ours. They will. And we'd be fools to believe we can force them to evolve faster than they would do naturally. 60 years ago the west almost tore itself apart, let's not forget: not that long ago really.

2006-10-30 13:05:08

#14

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7029|PNW

CameronPoe wrote:
The world is a big wide weird and varied place. Their societies haven't evolved at the same pace as ours. They will. And we'd be fools to believe we can force them to evolve faster than they would do naturally. 60 years ago the west almost tore itself apart, let's not forget: not that long ago really.

Meanwhile, we have to share the same chunk of rock with them. As for WW2, I suppose you could call it a western civil war...if it was solely restrained to western nations.

2006-10-30 13:26:04

#15

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6702|The Land of Scott Walker

CameronPoe wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
Who's to say that there is a solution anyway?
That's the spirit! Total negativity! That will fix everything!
It is quite conceivable that the only ones who can 'fix' everything are Iraqis or the main players in the general middle east. Us westerners aren't trusted, are culturally different and are exacerbating the violence - why would anyone believe that we could have a solution?

PS One man's negativity is another man's realism.

As unnamed said, no one in the Middle East has shown any ability to "fix" their region. So imho we might as well help a country have elections instead of a dictatorship. I don't think anyone is exacerbating the violence, either. Even when we're not over there, they're always finding reasons to blow each other up and slaughter one another. Anyone can see the bad in this world and, of couse, seeing the bad and working toward the good is easier said than done. It can be done, however. Choosing one's attitude makes a huge difference in one's perspective on life.

2006-10-30 13:31:24

#16

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6702|The Land of Scott Walker

CameronPoe wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:

It is quite conceivable that the only ones who can 'fix' everything are Iraqis or the main players in the general middle east. Us westerners aren't trusted, are culturally different and are exacerbating the violence - why would anyone believe that we could have a solution?

PS One man's negativity is another man's realism.
Although they didn't seem to do much better in history, left to their own devices.
The world is a big wide weird and varied place. Their societies haven't evolved at the same pace as ours. They will. And we'd be fools to believe we can force them to evolve faster than they would do naturally. 60 years ago the west almost tore itself apart, let's not forget: not that long ago really.

Hmmm, seems to me that WW2 was not the west tearing itself apart. It was the west fighting against Hitler's quest to rule the world and create the super race. The Japanes had similar aspirations, though I don't think it involved eliminating other ethnic groups, just ruling them after conquest.

2006-10-30 13:31:39

#17

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6812

Stingray24 wrote:
As unnamed said, no one in the Middle East has shown any ability to "fix" their region. So imho we might as well help a country have elections instead of a dictatorship. I don't think anyone is exacerbating the violence, either. Even when we're not over there, they're always finding reasons to blow each other up and slaughter one another. Anyone can see the bad in this world and, of couse, seeing the bad and working toward the good is easier said than done. It can be done, however. Choosing one's attitude makes a huge difference in one's perspective on life.

Why should we be so patronising as to believe that we can really help? It is quite evident that we don't have a clue how to 'help'. What is it now - three years of failed strategy? Result: about 100 Iraqis a day dying from sectarian violence. And not a clue as to how to proceed from here on in. We've done a fine job so far haven't we? The British and French empires went marauding around the world thinking they could 'civilise' far flung regions of the world. In a lot of cases they were resented (Ireland prime example) and in nearly all cases they largely failed (their empires are now non-existenent). To think we can play father figure to 'poor muslims who can't look after themselves' is unbelievably patronising.

I make no apologies for seeing things in the cold untainted light of day - realism is what I use to get through life. Optimism generally leads to disappointment.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-10-30 13:32:25)

2006-10-30 13:35:37

#18

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6812

Stingray24 wrote:
Hmmm, seems to me that WW2 was not the west tearing itself apart. It was the west fighting against Hitler's quest to rule the world and create the super race. The Japanes had similar aspirations, though I don't think it involved eliminating other ethnic groups, just ruling them after conquest.

It essentially was the west tearing itself apart - all of the most modern nations on earth were the main protagonists and the battle was for supremacy in terms of the world order and spheres of influence. It wasn't the high point in our civilisation but it was damn necessary to sort out Europe's internal borders once and for all.

2006-10-30 13:35:54

#19

{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank: U.S. > Iran; +497|6835|Florida

You want a solution? There is no legitimate solution to Iraq. Its fucked up. As in-humane as this sounds, a full proof solution would be to nuke the whole damn country. Let Iran make itself a nice large parking lot. I dont believe there is a solution that will work better than the other. Adding more soldiers to Iraq will increase security, via more soldiers being seen around the city. But once those people start to leave, insurgency will rise again.

Iraq is like a rocking chair, you can sit in it all day rocking it, but you dont get anywhere. Thats just how I kinda feel about it.

2006-10-30 13:40:59

#20

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6812

{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank wrote:
You want a solution? There is no legitimate solution to Iraq. Its fucked up. As in-humane as this sounds, a full proof solution would be to nuke the whole damn country. Let Iran make itself a nice large parking lot. I dont believe there is a solution that will work better than the other. Adding more soldiers to Iraq will increase security, via more soldiers being seen around the city. But once those people start to leave, insurgency will rise again.

Iraq is like a rocking chair, you can sit in it all day rocking it, but you dont get anywhere. Thats just how I kinda feel about it.

That's pretty much it. Unless the US is prepared to stay there FOREVER then they should consider leaving at the earliest opportunity. It's one or the other.

2006-10-30 13:48:05

#21

DesertFox-: The very model of a modern major general; +796|6942|United States of America

We do need more troops. We need those who are trained to deal with the "insurgental" conflict. The main battle fighting force could beat any army in the world, but this isn't that style of fighting.
It's Revolutionary War-ish in nature, they know they wouldn't stand a chance in a real battle so they're doing guerilla warfare. We need to shape up a group that can deal with the bastards.

2006-10-30 13:54:51

#22

UON: Junglist Massive; +223|6910

Worked in 'nam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war wrote:
On November 27, 1965 The Pentagon declared that if major sweep operations needed to neutralize Viet Cong forces were to succeed, the number of U.S. troops in Vietnam would have to be increased from 120,000 to 400,000.

[/sarcasm]

2006-10-30 16:35:41

#23

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6662|North Carolina

CameronPoe wrote:
Pray you don't get drafted?

I'd move to Canada before being drafted.

BF2S Forums What if the solution to Iraq is more U.S. Troops? What's the reaction?

CameronPoe wrote:

Harmor wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Board footer