|
More Troops!
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Yoepus |
More Troops to Iraq is the new rally cry.
More money to the FBI to prevent terrorism.
More money to the education system to help our failing schools.
"More" will always solve our problems, right?! :rolleyes:
I am sure they would be saying "more money" in Iraq too, if it wasn't a war, but a simple national venture.
Why is it always the attitude with Americans that if simply they do "more" of it, it will solve the problem?
The US primary education level is probably the richest in the world, it hasn't produce the highest level of academics.
The FBI is probably the richest intranational security agency, it hasn't stopped terror.
Troops in Iraq are enough, what suggest more will do anything to stop the problem?
Finally more argument on "More" troops in Iraq. I trust Rumsy, so I am biased. I believe he will do whatever is best for the US. And I know the US is not, not sending more troops into Iraq because it is too "cheap". Its not a money issue. Its not a political issue (you will have people critizing the US for failing if it sends in more troops, and you have people critizing the US for failing because it doesn't send more troop... these cancel each other out).
So I believe, if the US REALLY needs MORE TROOPS it will send more troops. It has the troops, they are on call. If they need them, they will send them, whats the big deal??
The problem here is that Americans have a "more" will solve everything attitude in this, and in other case. I just think Rummy is smart, he knows more won't solve anything, it might even be detremental.
Afterall all those that accues the US of being reckless for every Iraqi they kill, because it will create five more Iraqis that will rise up. Do they not than realize using the same rational that for every one US occupation soldier, it will enrage one more Iraqi?
The Pentagon devised such a formula previously... the more visible, the more existant the US is there the worse it makes it for the US. More is not necessarly better in this case.
Furthermore, when you say you want "more troops" what you are saying is you need "more power" in Iraq. And if I know one thing for sure, I know the US has unlimited power in Iraq. The question is the will to use this force (i.e. Artillery bombardment on Fullujah). So even if the US has more troops, more force, what will this bring as an advantage?
There are a thousands upon thousands of troops in Iraq, |
|
|
| xKaoSx |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
More Troops to Iraq is the new rally cry.
More money to the FBI to prevent terrorism.
More money to the education system to help our failing schools.
"More" will always solve our problems, right?! :rolleyes:
I am sure they would be saying "more money" in Iraq too, if it wasn't a war, but a simple national venture.
Why is it always the attitude with Americans that if simply they do "more" of it, it will solve the problem?
The US primary education level is probably the richest in the world, it hasn't produce the highest level of academics.
The FBI is probably the richest intranational security agency, it hasn't stopped terror.
Troops in Iraq are enough, what suggest more will do anything to stop the problem?
Finally more argument on "More" troops in Iraq. I trust Rumsy, so I am biased. I believe he will do whatever is best for the US. And I know the US is not, not sending more troops into Iraq because it is too "cheap". Its not a money issue. Its not a political issue (you will have people critizing the US for failing if it sends in more troops, and you have people critizing the US for failing because it doesn't send more troop... these cancel each other out).
So I believe, if the US REALLY needs MORE TROOPS it will send more troops. It has the troops, they are on call. If they need them, they will send them, whats the big deal??
The problem here is that Americans have a "more" will solve everything attitude in this, and in other case. I just think Rummy is smart, he knows more won't solve anything, it might even be detremental.
Afterall all those that accues the US of being reckless for every Iraqi they kill, because it will create five more Iraqis that will rise up. Do they not than realize using the same rational that for every one US occupation soldier, it will enrage one more Iraqi?
The Pentagon devised such a formula previously... the more visible, the more existant the US is there the worse it makes it for the US. More is not necessarly better in this case.
Furthermore, when you say you want "more troops" what you are saying is you need "more power" in Iraq. And if I know one thing for sure, I know the US has unlimited power in Iraq. The question is the will to use this force (i.e. Artillery bombardment on Fullujah). So even if the US has more troops, more force, what will this bring as an advantage?
There are a thousands upon thousands of troops in Iraq, |
It is customary for Americans to over compensate and underestimate.
:(
I think they believe they need more troops because the "battle" they are fighting now on the ground just requires more babysitting and general people to people action. |
|
|
| occrider |
| "More" $$$ will solve most if not all my problems. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
"Please Sir..." |
|
|
| Spankster |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
More Troops to Iraq is the new rally cry.
|
Do you know why they need more troops?
Its cos the 200,000 or so iraqi's(the ones they were hoping would take over in restoring law and order) that the US have trained up to be part of Iraqs new Security forces and Police force are swapping sides and joining the sunni and shia insurgents.
the ones that dont swap sides refuse to fight the insurgents cos they refuse to kill their iraqi brothers. Having said that, there are a couple groups that are still loyal to the american administration but more and more are leaving(it helps if these poor guys that are getting shot at by their own peeps actually got paid!!)
Link to article |
|
|
| Spankster |
Round up more troops!!
Enemy numbers are increasing!!!:eyespop: |
|
|
| xKaoSx |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spankster
Do you know why they need more troops?
Its cos the 200,000 or so iraqi's(the ones they were hoping would take over in restoring law and order) that the US have trained up to be part of Iraqs new Security forces and Police force are swapping sides and joining the sunni and shia insurgents.
the ones that dont swap sides refuse to fight the insurgents cos they refuse to kill their iraqi brothers. Having said that, there are a couple groups that are still loyal to the american administration but more and more are leaving(it helps if these poor guys that are getting shot at by their own peeps actually got paid!!)
Link to article |
err- fine - allied forces will leave and they will be in a civil war for 50 years. |
|
|
| Spankster |
| quote: | Originally posted by xKaoSx
err- fine - allied forces will leave and they will be in a civil war for 50 years. |
What do you think motivates these iraqi security members to switch sides? |
|
|
| xKaoSx |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spankster
What do you think motivates these iraqi security members to switch sides? |
The love of the idea of civil war? |
|
|
| Spankster |
| quote: | Originally posted by xKaoSx
The love of the idea of civil war? |
Now I know ur an idiot..........how about watching civilian iraqi's get recklessly bombarded by US artillery? maybe that drives them to switch sides? |
|
|
| Flotser |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spankster
What do you think motivates these iraqi security members to switch sides? |
Radical Islam... Fundamentalism... |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spankster
Do you know why they need more troops?
Its cos the 200,000 or so iraqi's(the ones they were hoping would take over in restoring law and order) that the US have trained up to be part of Iraqs new Security forces and Police force are swapping sides and joining the sunni and shia insurgents. |
Maybe thats the problem, the US trained to MANY Iraqis :)
From your own article: "Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq said the number of deserters is not large but is "troubling."
"The focus on numbers, versus quality, was misplaced. ... I think we need smaller, better-trained Iraqi Security Force personnel," the senior U.S. official said."
Also as to the 200,000 deserting, it is a much smaller number, ""The focus on numbers, versus quality, was misplaced. ... I think we need smaller, better-trained Iraqi Security Force personnel," the senior U.S. official said."
I don't think it is anywhere near half, thats for sure.
Also, "I think we all need to understand that the solution to Iraq's security problems does not lay with the United States armed forces," Abizaid said Monday. Abizaid fingered the Iraqi chain of command as the problem with the units. Inexperienced leaders who don't have the respect or confidence of their fighters have a difficult time facing battle, he said." |
|
|
|
|
