Surely Sending More Troops will Lead to a Glorious Victory!

[mopaul]

cspan question: should ground forces be expanded in iraq?

[Spider Jerusalem]

1. Sure. After all, it worked in Vietnam...

:eyes:

[Johnny Noshoes]

2. Just imagine

30 years from now Nike can build factories in Baghdad to make sneakers - hey just like Vietnam :mad:

[Oversea Visitor]

10. But are you going to wait till 58,000 die

before its enough

[Johnny Noshoes]

14. HELL NO

Its too many NOW. What will it take to wake up more people? I honestly don't know anymore but they better wake up REAL SOON.

[ngGale]

8. Sure did work in Vietnam, didn't it and ...

I'm just as sure it will work again. :sarcasm:

[Oversea Visitor]

3. Who is the troop suppose to fight?

Or are they just standing around waiting to be blown up
Or are they to be expose to so much stress that they will shoot anything
You are fighting the people who wants you out
You dont even know who is friends who is enemies

[mopaul]

4. it doesn't make sense on any level

they justify it with constant propaganda, but it doesn't help.

[Oversea Visitor]

11. Cause its a disater from the begining

And US just cant accept the shame of another Vietnam.
And they willing to pay for it with lives
How many before US decide to leave
Oh wait they going to hold on till 2008

[hobbit709]

5. Heard this before

"To stem the tide of revolution, we need a short victorious war."
Vyacheslav Pleve, Russian Minister of the Interior to General A.N. Kuroparfon, Minister of War, 1903 C.E., on the eve of the Russo-Japanese War.

The end result being that the Russians got their butts handed to them.

[Freedomfried]

6. Should be: "Should expanded forces be in the Iraq grinder"

[Hugin]

7. The time for "more troops" came and went long ago.

It's like the fact you can't light a match soaked with a whole
lot of gasoline.

But, sending more now is like pouring gasoline on a forest
fire. It only gets bigger.

But, then... The guys were cheerleaders when that lesson
was learned.

[necso]

9. Without sweeping changes to

leadership (civilian and military) and thinking (political and military, tactical and strategic), sending more troops would probably prove costly -- and fail to achieve any worthwhile objective.

And since we aren't likely to get any of these (in whatever case) necessary changes, then actually sending more troops doesn't appear too promising. (And who knows what these troops might actually be used for.)

However, there is a (slim) chance that a credible threat of doing so, combined with better use of the troops that we already have there (see above), might provide a useful bargaining chip. But, in practise, nothing good is to be anticipated, regardless of the course that these idiots take (that is, any course reasonably to be expected from them).

[Hugin]

12. Your parenthetical insertions are great! n/t

[necso]

13. Gee, I don't know.

I've been getting threats from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Punctuation.

But I figure that I can take them, so I'm not worrying.