BestOfBid.com
Can 167,000 troops do the job that 150,000 troops couldnot?
Fear, terror, threat and safety are all smoke screens to dodge the real issue. You cannot defend yourself from a country that was not gonig to attack and Iraq was not and could not attack the US. The REAL ISSUE IS MONEY. The Bush led GOP spearheaded an initiative to privitze services that were formerly provided by the Armed Forces. When my father ate in the mess hall the army provided the grub. Now Halliburton serves the meals. We spend 4 billion dollars per month in Iraq. Where do you think the money goe? Soldier salaries?? WRONG...Research and Development? Wrong again. They go to NO BID government contracts. Lots of em. This is a rare opportunity for GOP friendly companies to rake in billions. When the war ends that opportunity will cease for decades. They dont want the war to end and will lie, cheat steal, kill and use fear tactics to keep the voters in support of it. Dont be fooled. We're going broke over this war while someone is getting rich rich rich.
Public Comments
- The real issue is very doubtfully money. The real issue is providing the US Military a proving ground for there latest weapons and tactics in a realistic combat environment.
- Hello liberal, No neither could two million when you tie their hands. The military is not trained to be peace keepers. They are trained to fight wars. Your liberal friends want to further tie the hands of the military by cutting off funds and putting a time limit on this war in Iraq. Shame. Why not just do away with the military and let you defend yourself. That would be good, however the rest of us would suffer. Oh, read the story about Senator Fienstein of California and her husband, making millions off the military. Guess what? She is one of you liberals.
- No it will take 250,000 Troops and at least 10,000 Snipers. I am to old to join but you should think about it, that is the only way to resolve the problem without just giving the country to the strong-arm tactics of the internal warring factors, which will devastate the country more than what it has been already.
- Actually it is $9 billion a month. An amount that I cannot even begin to fathom, but I saw it clear as day on an email attachment from my commander today (it was actually an AAR-- After Action Report-- from a recent VIP). Charming.
- I liked your question, but not necessarily all the stuff that came after it. For the record, I'm a liberal and in the Army. Canthe addition of 17,000 troops help? Well, yes...of course. Everything helps...I think it would have been more helpful for the civilian leadership to go ahead and follow the original Iraq invastion plans that called for 500,000 troops right off the bat, would have allowed the US forces to secure Saddam's weapons caches before the insurgents got ahold of them in order to make roadside bombs that kill our Soldiers and Marines...Thanks, Don. Oops, I'm letting my liberal prejudices get in the way again. Back to the question. Anyway, an additional 17000 combat troops strategically placed can help the situation, and I believe that it is helping...Will it be enough? I certainly hope so...Anything to get us out of there sooner rather than later. I hope, however, that the President keeps all options on the table...it may turn out that military force won't win this...rather actually expecting the Iraqis to take control of their own country might help, too.
