Thread: Will U.S. troops interrupt support from Iran and Syria?

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/ ... S-Iraq.php

Iran and Syria on Thursday denounced a new Iraq strategy announced by U.S. President George W. Bush that blames them for fueling violence in the war-torn country. Tehran and Damascus said the plan to send more U.S. troops would only increase bloodshed in Iraq.

Trying to stop Hitler from occupying all of Europe increased bloodshed in Europe as well. Whatever it takes...

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Iran and Syria on Thursday denounced a new Iraq strategy announced by U.S. President George W. Bush that blames them for fueling violence in the war-torn country. Tehran and Damascus said the plan to send more U.S. troops would only increase bloodshed in Iraq.

Trying to stop Hitler from occupying all of Europe increased bloodshed in Europe as well. Whatever it takes...

True?!. Even if it means the death of many more of our troops. A worthy cause I suppose

Originally Posted by cherokeeman

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Iran and Syria on Thursday denounced a new Iraq strategy announced by U.S. President George W. Bush that blames them for fueling violence in the war-torn country. Tehran and Damascus said the plan to send more U.S. troops would only increase bloodshed in Iraq.

Trying to stop Hitler from occupying all of Europe increased bloodshed in Europe as well. Whatever it takes...

True?!. Even if it means the death of many more of our troops. A worthy cause I suppose

It's tragic to lose Americans overseas, but the fact is that casualties in this war are extraordinarily small. In the years since our toppling of the Hussein regime, we have only lost approximately the same number of Americans as were lost in a single attack in September 1, 2001.

My problem with the War on Terror is that we should either do it right or not at all. Too many dangerous groups have been placed off-limits and the focus has shifted from Islamic terrorism generically to a few regimes. While I am not privy to the logistical realities of troop strength and available resources, it seems that we are pussyfooting this thing. My best guess is that it is a cost issue. We have already had to nearly double the debt ceiling to prosecute the limited war. That's the problem with operating a nation on a debt system rather than a positive wealth system.

It's tragic to lose Americans overseas, but the fact is that casualties in this war are extraordinarily small. In the years since our toppling of the Hussein regime, we have only lost approximately the same number of Americans as were lost in a single attack in September 1, 2001.

My problem with the War on Terror is that we should either do it right or not at all. Too many dangerous groups have been placed off-limits and the focus has shifted from Islamic terrorism generically to a few regimes. While I am not privy to the logistical realities of troop strength and available resources, it seems that we are pussyfooting this thing. My best guess is that it is a cost issue. We have already had to nearly double the debt ceiling to prosecute the limited war. That's the problem with operating a nation on a debt system rather than a positive wealth system

I agree. I think it is a cost issue and a resource issue. Our transportation, for example was not ready for road side bombs, and we had to customize vehicles while we were there. We have a huge problem with US citizens protesting the war and chasing away our allies. I also think that we need to reduce foreign donations. If our allies are not going to help us finish this war, they do not deserve our generosity, and we need to use those funds to finance the war. We play by the rules (for the most part), and our enemies don't. When we step on some toes, like Gitmo, Americans are having a fit. Their whining is making this war longer than it needs to be. People here are swayed too easily by propoganda to see what we are up against, and it will be our demise.