|
Post by technohawk on Feb 1, 2007 15:36:43 GMT -8
We don't seem to have many debates lately so I figured I'd add this to possibly get a good discussion going. And for the love of cute little turtles, post your opinions.
Do you think that Bush's troop surge of 21 000 troops into Iraq is:
1) A good idea or bad idea 2) Going to win the war like Bush believes it will
And you may also discuss what the big deal is with both sides fighting on the wording of the troops additions. Like calling it a surge is ok but calling it an escalation is bad.
|
|
dxlightning
Platinum Membership
[ss:LostPeon's Gray][ss:LostPeon's Gray]
Posts: 1,246
|
Post by dxlightning on Feb 1, 2007 16:30:02 GMT -8
Yes, the troop surge is a good idea.
It may not overall win the war, but it should do quite a bit.
Right now, we have 150,000 troops in Iraq. Even so, the only green (safe) zone is in Baghdad. Now we could do one of three things:
1.) Withdraw and leave Iraq to deal with its own government
The problems: The world looks upon us as the country that screwed up Iraq and left it high and dry. We can't go this far and then suddenly give up; we need to do everything possible to finish this as soon as possible. Leaving now would leave a window for someone worse than Saddam to possibly take over Iraq and sending it right back into a dictatorship. Right now American Soldiers are the primary source of defense for the city of Baghdad. If we send in more we can satisfy Iraq's president's pleas for 17,000 more troops to secure the city. Likewise, if we leave, Iran could swoop in and take Iraq, its oil, and its people. Gas prices would skyrocket and the lingering hostilities between the US and Iraq/Iran could trigger an even worse conflict. The Benefits: People would stop bitching about how we should leave. The drawbacks far outweigh the benefits.
2.) Not send the 21,000 troops The Problems: Now we'd not only still be in Iraq so the world would still hate us, but we'd be getting little done. Our troops would be in Baghdad primarily and we wouldn't be able to spread out. It would take at LEAST another 2 years to take care of our problems at the moment. We wouldn't be making things worse but they wouldn't be getting better, either. The Benefits: Perhaps people would begin to realize that what we're currently doing isn't working and we NEED the extra troops. Less complaint means the government is more free to act.
3.) Send in the troops! The Problems: This will cause a rift. A recent ABC poll shows that 58% of America wants this whole thing to be OVER. Also, a large percentage (sorry I don't have a statistic here) are against the troop surge. This is, of course, assuming the liberal media hasn't skewed these numbers. The troop surge (though few people think about it hard enough to realize it) will speed up the process if not ultimately lead to a quicker resolution to this whole thing. People hate being torn between what they believe is right and what will work. And of course there's the added effect of more troops = more casualties.
The Benefits: All in all, the conflict will end more quickly. With more troops, we can secure the red zones. When we secure the red zones, we give Iraq the power to govern itself until it can create its own uncorrupt police force. When Iraq has its own police force, they (theoretically) should be able to run themselves with little American interference.
This all boils down to the best way to end the war. We need to end it and we need to end it quickly (and I'm not just saying that because this war tarnishes the good Republican name!). Looking back, I'm sure most of us can agree this was a bad idea (or at least the part where they lied about why they were starting the war). What's best for America is to do this quickly and correctly. The troop surge will greatly contribute to this plan.
In the (paraphrased) words of George W. Bush:
Before you flame it, give it a chance.
I'd go in favor of the troop surge.
|
|
|
Post by stellartrip on Feb 1, 2007 16:58:45 GMT -8
I do think the surge is good CONSIDERING how we are already there. The Bushies started this, so we might as well finish this, and hopefully get this war over with quicker.
No matter what bush does now it still won't redeem him for going against the will of the U.N. and starting the war in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Prone on Feb 1, 2007 18:37:18 GMT -8
With more troops in Iraq, you
1) Decrease the time it takes to get things under control
2) the likelyhood of corruption lessens as there are more american troops to help Iraqis fight.
I don't like the fact that there is a war at all.
|
|
dxlightning
Platinum Membership
[ss:LostPeon's Gray][ss:LostPeon's Gray]
Posts: 1,246
|
Post by dxlightning on Feb 1, 2007 18:38:01 GMT -8
Yes but the point is you need to look at now and not before. Getting this over with is better for the politicians, it's better for the Americans, it's better for the Iraqis, and most importantly it's better for the troops who are over there now.
The surge is a good idea BECAUSE we're there already. We're already in this far, and no matter how much you hate it, it's still a fact. Given the circumstances this is a smart choice.
|
|
|
Post by Compbasher on Feb 1, 2007 21:45:30 GMT -8
Before I put in my two cents, I would like to point out I do not follow politics, only watched five minutes of the union address, and know little to no statistics about the war. With that disclaimer out of the way...
Winning this war completely is about as possible as the Dolphins winning the Superbowl on Sunday. As far as I've heard, there are little actual spoken or written guidelines to stating when, in fact, the war has been won. We ousted Suddam and his regime and even had him executed. Most would say, berift the execution, one check for the US and allied forces.
But what now? We can only do so much for the country of Iraq until it needs to take action for itself. As for the present, leaving the troops in Iraq is good to help stabilize situations. I'll agree on that. Sending more troops into combat is probably more beneficial than not at this point. But besides for helping set up a democratic Iraqi government modeled after our own and stabilizing the country as a whole in many aspects, what do we have to do to win this war? Is it all connected to the capture of Bin Laden? Sounds fallacious but if he bites the dust, would things really get better in Iraq?
|
|