BF2S Forums The US troop increase in Iraq.

The Bartenders Son wrote:

-=CB=-krazykarl wrote:

srog72 wrote:

Im not biased at all......I have seen good comments(points) from both sides of this thread but my source is seeing this war in real life and on TV.........

in REAL LIFE? wtf son, are you for real? ON A FUXING SCREEN? THAT IS REAL? grow up dude, then maybe we can talk. c fuxing c fuxing and fuxing n, is not REAL LIFE. welcome to reality. have a blissful night. SON!

He said T.V LMFAO... you have seen nothing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't bother with that clown....he has nothing to add.....krazykarl suggetsed a nuke

Last edited by srog72 (2007-01-10 20:54:21)

Monkeyman911 wrote:

BAD
I say its not our fight
thats the US
always thinking we can help other countries with their own disasters
and where does it get us??

Your country got there in the first place, it would be right to stay until the job is done, which is make Iraq safe.

I guess to normal civilians it might be good or bad depending on the current situation. 

I don't know how it would feel like to be one of the twenty thousand soldiers to be called up for duty.
I have a friend who hasn't served a tour yet and he really wants to go with his unit and I have a friend who has already served two and he doesn't want to go back but if he can come home and have someone else take his place he would like it.

I really don't know if it is a good or bad thing to be honest.  It could be a good thing to help reinforce the security .

George W. Bush, potus wrote:

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

reads;
the war just got bigger.

I find it rather amusing how he could effortlessly slide in the fact that U.S. soldier did not have "green light" to go combat....the enemy..wtf? Who in the hell needs to give green light to follow the enemy and pursue them? Is that not their sole purpose of being there, its a sad state of affairs alright. From what it seems this president has got some balls sending out more troops and justifying it with the same old rhetoric of slowly giving the Iraqi's more responsibility for the "situation" they so miraculously happen to be in. Come on this guy clearly wants to escalate the situation more and more, not only do we have U.S. involvement in Somalia...hmm wonder what's going on there, but now this guy is threating Iran. Jesus this guy sure wants peace...man i need to get this guy a nomination to the Nobel Peace Prize.

Sending more troops will not accomplish anything more then killing more people. Reason being that even at the highest level of troop numbers in Iraq the situation was still miss handled and for some reason at the time it was a "good" idea to pull back more troops only to have to send them out again.

Why else would you have ex-Generals retired due to their opposition to Bush's handling of the war. Face it the mission is a success from Bush's point of view, he manged to get billions of dollars worth of contracts to his friends .

Bad for the people that fear the military, good for people that want to be deployed.

Doesn't matter either way the u.s wont win.... Iraq isn't what their fighting, its terrorism.... terrorism isn't a army, it isn't a nation, its not one person... its a idea....

ideas can only be changed with a nuke.... and if 1 doesn't work Meany might answer it ..

Spark wrote:

I think the success of this "new strategy" (if there is anything new about it) will depend not on the troops but the way they are used. Therefore asking whether the troop increase is good or bad is redundant.

Did you listen to his speech?

Spark wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Spark wrote:

I think the success of this "new strategy" (if there is anything new about it) will depend not on the troops but the way they are used. Therefore asking whether the troop increase is good or bad is redundant.

Did you listen to his speech?

He announced (on the US side of things) that 20 000 extra troops would be deployed, mostly to Baghdad, but 4000 to Anbar province. They would have unrestricted access to all areas of the capital without interference and would secure these areas. Also, Iraq and Syrian "support" would be "halted", and a carrier strike group would be deployed, and work closely with Iraq and Trukey on border control.

Any questions? I have one.

That's it? There may be bits I didn't catch but to me that's a very inadequate "new" strategy. In a nutshell: More troops in Baghdad will work without restriction and border control would be toughened.

No it wasn't it, thats why I asked if you watched it.

beerface702 wrote:

only a fool though would volunteer for a war though

Wow..

DemonAlucard wrote:

meh....for those who say yes to increase should sign up and go over there.  hell....why not put the fucking draft and we will all go! how fun is that..hahaha if that happens i am sure all the republicans that have sons over 18+ yrs won't want them to go by force.

We cant have our own opinions?  And actually, some troops in Iraq would want more people dumbshit.  Bush cant just withdraw from the hole he has dug, because the government will be a mess.  Personally, I think more troops may help, but wont be a full solution.

Turquoise wrote:

Bad idea...  withdrawal is the answer.

Your wrong pure and simple. . . .

That sends a terrible message, and isnt a viable plan for long LASTING security. Cutting and running does nothing but embolden our enemies.

The bottom line. . . if this new plan of action works (which is in the balance), and the situation really improves in Iraq, the world and the USA win!!

Its not about George fucking Bush! Its about putting a fucking country back together, and closing off a terrorist safe haven for the future!! Why are so many of you liberals waiting for us to lose there?? its absolutely mind boggling! If we win, EVERYONE WINS! The Iraqi people get their country back, the USA gets it credibility back, and the murdering terrorists get whiped out!   

what is so goddamn bad about that. . .  .

Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-01-11 00:51:26)

Spark wrote:

I too would like to know these benchmarks.

While the full strategy won't be known until he outlines it to Congress this is simply too vague.

Agreed.