[quote]Pothos either too stupid or pretending he doesn't get it.
Pothos: "Your hatred for the president causes you to criticise him for "not" sending in enough troops, then for sending in extra troops. The fact that you can't settle one or the other proves that you simply hate the President, and that you hate the conservatives."
You are that stupid and dishonest or you are just pretending?
Anyway to waste more time responding to this one: They should have sent more troops FOR THE INVASION AND INITIAL STAGES OF THE OCCUPATION, in order to PREVENT that insurgency--or at least contain it as much as possible, and in order to prevent all those evil little genies to get out of their Pandora's box. Now it is TOO LATE. It was BEFORE that it needed to be done and that at least 400,000 troops should have been sent there as President Dumb Shit Know-Nothing was advised to do by X number of U.S. and foreign military experts and officers.
NOW it won't do any good because they have let the bad guys out on the loose already. The best you can hope for is that it will possibly reduce the violence a little bit, in Baghdad, for a while. And even that best-case scenario will just amount to treating the symptoms not the disease, not the root causes of terrorism.
Not to mention that the more you send the more anti-American sentiments you generate, which in turn fuels terrorism--logics you are utterly incapable of understanding since you truly know shit about the middle east and how they react to U.S. military presence there. [/quote]
Response updated in 2008:
This argument makes you look like a dog chasing its own tail.
Whether we're talking about the invasion stage, or the 2007 troop surge, we have the same problem. You have an X number of enemies and violence to contain. You're illogically trying to argue that more troops would work in the beginning, but not later when a similar problem is presented.
Again, time proved you wrong. We didn't have that many troops in place during the surge over the number of troops that we used to invade the country.
The 400,000 number is based on Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Guess what? The way we did things changed since then. Technology and doctrine has changed. We could do allot more with allot less soldiers now than we could during those times.
It wouldn't have mattered if we had those 400,000 troops in Iraq or not. We still would've faced the insurgency. The surge proved that we didn't need those 400,000 troops after all. We made similar mistakes in Vietnam. We captured territory, then moved on before we could permanently secure that territory.
During the surge, we secured territory before we moved on.
President Bush received numerous recommendations. They touched on how many troops would be needed for the invasion. Do understand that the majority of the people that gave him advice advanced the number that we actually used.
This is coming from the Pentagon. It had an Iraq Invasion plan on the shelf long before we invaded Iraq. That plan constantly got updated. What originally called for the number of troops that we had during Desert Storm ended up decreasing to what we eventually sent in.
The Military cooked these plans up, not the President. These numbers changed to the current numbers long before we invaded Iraq.
Now, here's another area where time proved you wrong.
We sent more troops in, which puts us at approximately the same levels we had invading the country. Result? We're substantially ahead, progress wise, in securing that country. Also, anti U.S. sentiments have remained the same as they were when we went in. No real change in that area.
You shoot yourself in the foot with your last paragraph. You say that we need more troops, but then backtrack and talk about how more troops was a bad idea later on.
Hello? McFly? Anybody home McFly?
Didn't you think that your arguments against the surge would've applied had we sent your numbers in during the invasion?
You criticized President Bush for not sending enough troops. You criticized him for sending more troops. That's you showing your hatred against President Bush.
You show a drastic misunderstanding of how things work in the Middle East. You show a drastic misunderstanding of what "causes" terrorism.
Based on what you post, I'd say that your lack of military experience painfully shows.
Go back and read about the Barbary Wars. You'll notice that we got attacked when we didn't do any of the things that we do today. This isn't about them resenting our military action in Iraq, then resorting to terrorism. They've conducted terrorism against us since we were a new country.
Read and listen to what the terrorist say. If Bin Laden indicates that one of the things that we have to do prevent terror attacks against us is to convert to Islam, then that should give you a clue as to one of the sources of terrorism.
Updated to add:
I've recently combat deployed to Iraq. The vast majority of the Iraqis showed us their gratitude when I was there. Do you still think that I wouldn't know their reactions? Well, I saw it first hand.
The only thing that you're proving in this debate is that you're a fool.
No comments:
Post a Comment