20,000 MORE troops? With what justification?
By Ciniful
@Ciniful (1587)
Canada
January 10, 2007 8:32pm CST
I just watched part of Bush's speech for the night, and am sitting here flabbergasted. 20,000 more?? How? Why, for that matter? When is enough enough? How many have to die for this (cough) war before the line is drawn?
There has been more US soldiers dead in this war than all the people dead in the 9/11 attacks. That's only US soldiers. That doesn't include Iraq civilians, other civilians, british, italian and canadian military, reporters, etc.
Bush claimed during his speech that the people fighting this war believe as he does that it's a noble cause. I find that hard to believe considering some of the letters written FROM the soldiers to Michael Moore, and are displayed on his website, where they are flat out confused, frustrated and annoyed. The news broadcaster says this is Bush's last chance, and if he blows this one .. republicans will be crossing over to side with the democratics and finally say enough.
It's just a shame it's going to take another 20,000 innocent lives to do it.
So who else watched the speech, and what are your thoughts?
1 person likes this
4 responses
@MrNiceGuy (4141)
• United States
7 Feb 07
There are many more letters to the opposite affect that Michael Moore chooses not to put on his website, don't forget that.
Its to secure the area so we can leave faster. Many hands make little work, get the job done, transition smoother, get it over with. part of the problem is the lack of troops we sent that are unable to hold down areas, instead they just have to rove around trying to weed out the bad guys by waiting to be attacked.
@shantanu_naanu (20)
• India
7 Feb 07
may be bush appears some harsh but how will u supress terrorism???u were hit once and ur government took the best step to stop terrorism..u cant stop them without giving blood.to make the world free we need to give our blood
@Idlewild (6090)
• United States
27 Jan 07
I'm surprised no one else responded here, but hey, I'll throw in my 2 cents.
I think it was a mistake to go into Iraq, it took the attention off Afghanistan, where al Quaida was based (and where the Taliban are having a resurgence). Part of the problem in Iraq, I think, was that there were never enough troops there to secure the country. I'm not sure sending more now will make things better or not (it will take time for them to get adjusted, among other things), but the Administration's "stay the course" attitude has long since worn thin with me.
I used to think it way absurd when people compared Iraq to Vietnam; now I'm not so sure.
@FrancyDafne (2047)
• Italy
7 Feb 07
I agree with you. Attack on Iraq was unfair. And now Saddam isn't at power anymore. And yet U.S. and U.K. stay still there.
Bush recognized that the situation in Iraq is very confused, and what does he do? He will send other 20000 soldiers. Incredible....
