So I thought the 'speech' was fairly lame myself... For starters, Maliki will likely never attempt to go up against Sadr, matter-of-fact, when we send in more troops, it wouldn't surprise me if Maliki actually tells Sadr where we are going and what we are going to be doing so that Sadr can tell his militia to clear the area prior to our arriving... 20,000 more troops? If we are really going to be serious about this, then send in 200,000 or 300,000... 20,000 will do nothing in my opinion...
“The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and it is unacceptable to me"
Umm, it's been unacceptable to a growing number of Americans for quite some time now, and I think to send in 20,000 more troops now is too little too late... Either send in enough to do the job and replace the weak leader Maliki with someone who will actually stand up and disband the militia's, or just stop...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The Iraqis Agree...
Or at least that one does... :)
I haven't been following the news closely, but I don't think the extra 20,000 will effect much good - if any.
I have come to view the situation as this: One of the chief flaws in this endeavor is Bush's faith in the will and ability of the Iraqi people to embrace democracy, especially within a timeframe short enough for the patience of the American people to keep soldiers there. Our patience has run its course; I think the majority of Americans are ready for us to leave and let come what may it Iraq - it's their country, let them become what they will.
Of course, I long for the world in which we could be isolationists, but unfortunately I don't think that's possible or practical anymore. So, leaving Iraq, let's go on to meddle and shed American blood in the next foreign nation. . .
I'll have to go read the speech. I haven't been keeping up this week. I had heard about the 20,000 more troups though. Doesn't seem to me like that is enough to do much either.
I totally agree. 20,000 more troops is like throwing a plastic knife at a guy with a machine gun.....not quite going to do the job! We need to just send in about 100,000 troops and take control....then we can let the Iraqi's have their country back 1 piece at a time as they prove they can handle it.
I think what kills me the most is that most of the Dems have been calling for more "troops on the ground" for nearly 3 years... Pelosi and Reid are both 'on the record' for doing so (Reid as recently as 4 weeks ago)...
Now that Bush wants them, it's like, "Oh no, can't do that"... It's like no matter what the solution is, if Bush is for it, the Dems are against it, no matter what it means for America...
I say, "What is their plan?"
Being against the Bush plan isn't a plan... You can be against the war, but that's like crying over spilt milk, doesn't do any good... If we pull out now with no solution, we are giving the terrorists a safe haven, control of billions of dollars worth of oil, etc... Bad plan! So, if the Democrats would actually have a plan other than just being against whatever Bush proposes, let's hear it...
well said Matt
I agree with all said. Americans are tired with the throwing pebbles at Iraq. Especially if Americans are dying.
I think Colonel Jack Jacobs pretty much agrees with my analysis:
"Now there are only two conversations these two guys could have had. One is Maliki tells Al-Sadr, listen, the Americans are coming, they’re coming into Baghdad and I’m afraid I have to switch sides. I’m going with the Americans. All bets are off, you’re on your own. Or what is much more likely. The Americans are coming, they’re going into selected neighborhoods. I recommend what you do is just take a holiday for awhile, just go take a break."
Post a Comment