Should we send more troops to Iraq to finish what we started?

Question

When Iraq attacked us on 9/11/01, we responded by going to war; we responded by going to wipe out the threat that presented itself to us. Now we've been pulling troops out, and trying to fight war fairly. War is not fair. So, should we send more troops overseas to end this war with less casualties for our troops; send them over so they could quite possibly be home sooner; send them over so we can sleep in peace at night?

Answer 1

Iraq didn't attack us on 9-11, Al-Qeada did. That being said, we need to do everything in our country's power to ensure a stable democratic Iraq not only survives but flourishes. If it takes more troops then do it. If it takes more contractors then do it. If it takes bombing Iran then do it.

Answer 2

Others have pointed out that Iraq did not attack us on 9/11... Al Qaida did. This is true, but when we went in to topple Saddam, we found terror training camps including old aircraft fuselages where Al Qaida trained on taking over jet liners. Sound familiar?



Let's not loose sight of the fact that the radical powers in Iraq and other Muslim countries have declared war on all non-Muslims, a Jihhad, and will support terrorism as long as it can support their goals. We MUST find a viable solution for Iraq.



One of my repeated suggestions is to divide Iraq into the three provinces that existed before the fall of the Ottoman empire. Iraq was created for the ease of control by the British, and when Iraq regained it's independence in 1936, it left the three factions battling for the right to govern it had when it was it's own province. Allow Iraq to return to the pre-WW1 borders giving the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds the right to govern themselves in peace once again. Then we can withdraw.



Even then, we may maintain a presence in the province that will probably be called Kurdistan. The Kurds are very pro-west as their Kurdish neighbors in Turkey. This should be a more peaceful presence once the Shiites and Sunnis also have their piece of the pie.

Answer 3

I don't think just throwing more troops and money in is going to help, a better plan of action has to be reached before much improvement is possible. But all three might help.



However I don't see why you say that Iraq attacked the US on 9/11. None of the attackers were Iraqis, and to my knowledge it doesn't look like Iraq was closely involved.

Answer 4

Of course. If we pull out before the new Iraqi government is fully established and able to protect itself, we will not have accomplished anything.



Look at WW2, after wiping out the Japanesse government, we stayed the course and Japan became a powerful ally. We had troops being killed in the Pacific theater for years after the war ended, but this did not scare us into a withdrawl of troops. We still have a major military presence there.

Answer 5

Iraq most certainly did NOT attack us on 9/11. This was a ruse used by the administration to gain support for the war. Even Bush has recanted his previous statements on this, and claims that Iraq/Saddam had "nothing" to do with the attack on 9/11/01. Most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, but were supported by Al Queda- which had its headquarters and training situated in Afghanistan.



However- in March of '03 70% of America believed that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Freaky huh?

Answer 6

Because so many people believe crapola like "Iraq attacked us on 9/11" we are stuck in an impossible quagmire. There is no way to win this war. Wake up and smell the oil profits you FOOL!!!



The ONLY reason Bush isn't pulling the U.S. out of Iraq is because the puppet Democracy can't stand on it's own. If we leave now, the country collapses into civil war, and all his corporate cronies don't get to setup their oil refineries. Are you really so naive to think we are there to protect the U.S. from terrorism? Open your eyes!!!



Iraq did not attack the U.S. and they are not GOING to attack the U.S. They have nothing to attack us with! The U.S. is on the other side of the planet. Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction. They have no ICBMs. They have no submarines. They have no bombers. They are powerless to directly threaten us in any fashion other than a sneaky terrorist activity that ANY middle eastern or terrorist nation could do anytime they wanted. If a terrorist wants to sacrifice their life to commit terrorism, it's almost impossible to prevent it, but you can try.



Bush did ZERO to TRY to protect this nation from terrorism because they way you do that is by strengthening and securing our ports, terminals, borders and improving our intelligence agencies. Going around the world and blowing the crap out of a sovereign nation CREATES TERRORISTS. Why don't people understand this???



If we send more troops to Iraq, all we will see will be a short term drop in violence. The various factions find ways to subvert the increased security, and the violence will resurge. This is because they are fighting for IDEOLOGY. We learned this lesson in Vietnam, but because our commander-in-chief had a GPA of 2.3 in college, he didn't. You can't destroy and idea, and the Islamic people don't want western ideas.



As soon as we leave Iraq, their country will collapse into civil war, and the "democratic" government will most likely be overthrown. By that time, the Republicans (with all their corporate oil cronies will be out of office), and we can finally get down to the business of repairing the trillion dollar deficit that eight years of Bush and his buddies have created, along with all the collateral damage this "adventure in search of fossil fuel" has cost.



We would have been better just spending the money on becoming energy independent, and let China worry about getting the oil out of Iraq.

Answer 7

I think we should send in some fresh troops and remove the Geneva Convention restrictions. What country actually follows the Geneva Convention anyway? ONLY THE U.S. We are not fighting an army of trained soldiers; we are fighting a group of restless racists who have the nerve to send their pregnant women and young children out to U.S. troops with grenades and AK47's.



If we weren't so busy pussyfooting around for all the liberals who have no idea what they're talking about, we could get the job done.



Oh, by the way, Vietnam is practically the same way. We want our troops to go in there and get the job done with their f-ing hands tied behind their backs! Let 'em go! LET THEM DO THEIR JOBS SO WE CAN STILL BE ALIVE HERE DOING OURS! How would you like it if someone asked you to do an office job with your hands tied behind your back and all your coworkers furious that you aren't getting your job done?

Answer 8

Yes, I think we should sent more troops over. Our military appear's to need help, and I'm sure they would appreciate extra forces to back them up against a building resistance in several areas there.. I think we could hopefully get this job finished and get out of there. We have lost way way to many great hero's fighting for our freedom.. I dont know if they will ever get their government together, but if we try to get them a little closer and rid this place of the self destructors, ( or as many as possible ) , We might all be able to sleep a little better at night's .. especially anyone with a family member over there. What a terrible place to have to be..

Answer 9

No we should retrain the ones we would have sent to become assisins and go in search of Al Quaid operatives all of the world and kill them without a trial.



I don't recall the people at 9/11 had a trial. So kill them all - let them fear us. Let people be scared to join Al Quaida knowing if they are even associated with such an organization they will die!!!!!!!!!!!



Why should our country live in fear? We didn't need to go into Iraq in the first place - Sadam had nothing to do with 911! *** that he is - there are better places like Sudan that are actually slaughtering people where we can interven and do some good. As you notice Sadam at least maintained some order in Iraq!

Answer 10

There is no war to win in Iraq. Our presence has shaken this country, and revealed the differences of its peoples. Iraq is on the verge of a civil war, and in many ways it is because of our presence in Iraq. Sure, it was great that we got Saddam Hussein out of power. But we did not do a good job rebuilding the country, and it has now spiraled out of the military's control. The line between civilian and insurgent has grown too thin, therefore our only option is to focus all efforts on training Iraqis and redeploy our troops.

Answer 11

I think the question is how to finish. Sending more troops does not means it can finish.



If a real solution is to send more troops and it will be over with. I am all for it.



But I strongly doubt that it is the solution. I don't think there is one without doing something that is viewed as genocide by the world.

Answer 12

That's kind of the problem. They've got it balanced out so there's still troops here, stateside, to help support the mission. There's still operations that go on here that need to go on, so if we had less and less manpower stateside, that just makes us more vulnerable to attacks. We can't let that happen again.



I would, however, like this war to end. Loved ones lose their significant other, or their significant other comes back so changed. War changes people, you know... I don't see why they still have us over there.

Answer 13

because of the fact there grew to become into no justification for attacking Iraq. US intelligence centers had recommended the government that Iraq had no WMDs grew to become into not in contact in 9/11 and there grew to become into no reason to attack and yet Bush attacked besides. luckily for Canada and Canadians the Canadian government had the foresight to comprehend that an attack against Iraq would not be a favorable act interior the conflict on terrorism. rather, Canadian troops have been committed to try against operations against the actual terrorists, the Taliban and Al Queda the place over one hundred twenty Canadians have given their lives.

Answer 14

Send more troops over to fix the problem? You could send over a million more troops, it wouldnt fix a thing. Training of Iraqi military and police forces are essential to the U.S. eventual pull out of Iraq. Sending more U.S. troops will only injure and/or kill more U.S. troops.

Answer 15

My plan would be like this.



Identify which groups there are trying to kill each other and why. Suni Shias whatever. Then feed everybody, make some buildings and schools too. Split it up into separate countries so everybody stops trying to kill each other. Protect the borders, have elections, give lots of food aid. In exchange for oil even.

Answer 16

I don't know what the hell we are supposed to finish. They are killing each other over tribal/islamic BS that is 1000 years old. Its the Goddammed 21st century!! Unless we kill all of one faction, I don't see how we are supposed to win anything. Turkey is a great example of how secularism and islam can work. More troops? To protect each other over there --- a definite yes.

Answer 17

We have a civil war now. Neighbors who look exactly like each other are killing each other just for religion. Same old same old for hundreds of years. They must have to carry papers saying what religion they belong to so the other religion can kill them?



No more chance of peace here than in the holy lands of Israel.

Answer 18

no we should not send more troops to iraq bc it is turning in to a nother vietnam , bc we had controle of the cities but now the local people want us out and we want to stay in bc we think we can win but really we are never going to win the iraq war ,

Answer 19

First of all Iraq did not attack us on 9/11/2001.

Answer 20

I live in a military town. Our military believes in the mission but they can't understand why politicians don't get behind them and support the effort. We removed a modern day maniac from becoming more powerful than he was. I know it's an unpopular war, but if it keeps a mad man and his sons from raping another poor school girl, it's worth it.

Answer 21

If you do, you should start with the oldest people in the pentagon, not kids right out of high school. send the generals, majors and captains and make the politicians go as well.

Answer 22

As this war has lost its moral ground, we should reduce the troops and eventually cut & run. Iraq did not attack us.

Answer 23

First of all,Iraq never attacked us.Second,we shouldn't have invaded them to begin with,third,now that bush has us stuck there,I think that he and all the people that support him and his policies should be the ones to go finish the job.

Answer 24

SADDAM DID RULE IRAQ AND MAINTAINED ORDER. OF COURSE HE DID IT BY MURDERING ALL HIS OPPONENTS INCLUDING THE MAN WHO HELPED BRING HIM TO POWER IMMEDIATELY AFTER HE DETERMINED THAT HE "MIGHT" BECOME A THREAT TO HIS RULE. SEND IN ANOTHER DIVISION OF TROOPS TO SIT ON EVERY STREET CORNER DAY AND NIGHT AND PUT DOWN ANY INSURRECTION INSTANTLY.

Answer 25

Yes we should go in there with what ever is necessary even if it means some civillians will get killed also..there will be less lives lost in a long run........

Ex Marine

Answer 26

Nope, bring back the troop and avoid any more casualities.We have already earned enough hatred and more than enough tears of innocent lives.!

Answer 27

Yes send more and finally finish the job.

Answer 28

this is bushs war daddy was dissed by suddam and osama bin ladin poses no threat to us please let his and his repulicans go to war where is bin ladin bush and people in iraq do not want to die anymore than we do dont get me started bin and georg are buddies they make a mint in oil and drugs

Answer 29

yes SEND MORE TROOPS TO FINISH YOUR OCCUPATION IN IRAQ hahahaha

Answer 30

Why we haven't sent more troops in already, I will never know...

Answer 31

nah bring them all home now let more attacks happen on U.S. soil

Answer 32

i dont really think so. i mean what is the point. im not even clear why we are fighting this war.

Answer 33

No. We need to learn how to accept defeat. To keep going just means we are stubborn. And silly , to put it mildy.

Answer 34

Oh, I wish everyone had peace with each other...

Answer 35

NOOOOOOO. However, the "twins" will be OK>

Answer 36

no enough blood is being shed.

Answer 37

YES!!!

Answer 38

nuke the ******* oorah

Answer 39

no.........because they're not getting nothing done

Answer 40

no

Answer 41

N O .................