Personman - Latest Comments on Escalation in Iraq http://personman.com/?disp=comments en-US http://backend.userland.com/rss 60 Annerose [Visitor] in response to: Escalation in Iraq Wed, 11 Jul 2007 05:20:12 +0000 Annerose [Visitor] c44687@http://personman.com/ <p>These comments have been invaluable to me as is this whole site. I thank you for your comment.</p> These comments have been invaluable to me as is this whole site. I thank you for your comment.

]]> http://personman.com/escalation_in_iraq#c44687 hundiejo [Member] in response to: Escalation in Iraq Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:34:11 +0000 [Member] c43616@http://personman.com/ <p>Also, I am/was under the impression that the generals would be opposed to troop increases <strong>if</strong> there were no specific purposes or plan for them.</p> <p>( <a href="http://citebite.com/c6y9y6i3luyn" rel="nofollow ugc">http://citebite.com/c6y9y6i3luyn</a> )</p> <blockquote><p>Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq and one of several generals who met with Gates, said he supports boosting troop levels only when there is a specific purpose for their deployment.</p> <p>&#8220;I&#8217;m not necessarily opposed to the idea, but what I want to see happen is when, if we do bring more American troops here, they help us progress to our strategic objectives,&#8221; Casey told reporters during a news conference with Gates and military leaders.</p></blockquote> <p>I&#8217;d agree with that. So if there is a plan or purpose for the increase of troop levels, then the same generals would be for it. So would I.</p> Also, I am/was under the impression that the generals would be opposed to troop increases if there were no specific purposes or plan for them.

( http://citebite.com/c6y9y6i3luyn )

Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq and one of several generals who met with Gates, said he supports boosting troop levels only when there is a specific purpose for their deployment.

“I’m not necessarily opposed to the idea, but what I want to see happen is when, if we do bring more American troops here, they help us progress to our strategic objectives,” Casey told reporters during a news conference with Gates and military leaders.

I’d agree with that. So if there is a plan or purpose for the increase of troop levels, then the same generals would be for it. So would I.

]]> http://personman.com/escalation_in_iraq#c43616 hundiejo [Member] in response to: Escalation in Iraq Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:03:33 +0000 [Member] c43614@http://personman.com/ <p>You have given good reasons. What I am most concerned with is what the best thing to do is. Abandon it completely? That is my least favorite option.</p> <blockquote><p>If more troops go in I hope it works and things in Iraq improve, but have a hard time believing that it will unfold that way. He&#8217;s trying to draw to an inside straight and the chips he&#8217;s pushing in are actual human people with real lives and families.</p></blockquote> <p>I hear ya there and I don&#8217;t like that aspect of it too, but there are what, 150K of our men and women over there already, and 50 million people in Iraq. I want for the US to do what is best for all of them, not just the 150K or 170K of troops.</p> <p>What is a better alternative? </p> <p>Why did the neighborhoods return to violence? If the answer lies in a lack of police and Iraqi army forces, then perhaps a good option is to train them more, send more troops in, and do it right.</p> <p>I don&#8217;t know the answer. What I do know is not to reject the proposal for the sole sake of being against war in general. You don&#8217;t do that here. We should take the best option.</p> You have given good reasons. What I am most concerned with is what the best thing to do is. Abandon it completely? That is my least favorite option.

If more troops go in I hope it works and things in Iraq improve, but have a hard time believing that it will unfold that way. He’s trying to draw to an inside straight and the chips he’s pushing in are actual human people with real lives and families.

I hear ya there and I don’t like that aspect of it too, but there are what, 150K of our men and women over there already, and 50 million people in Iraq. I want for the US to do what is best for all of them, not just the 150K or 170K of troops.

What is a better alternative?

Why did the neighborhoods return to violence? If the answer lies in a lack of police and Iraqi army forces, then perhaps a good option is to train them more, send more troops in, and do it right.

I don’t know the answer. What I do know is not to reject the proposal for the sole sake of being against war in general. You don’t do that here. We should take the best option.

]]> http://personman.com/escalation_in_iraq#c43614 Ben Borges [Visitor] in response to: Escalation in Iraq Thu, 11 Jan 2007 01:51:21 +0000 Ben Borges [Visitor] c43610@http://personman.com/ <p>You are completely right in your observation, here in Europe people also feel this is going to be even worst than any other kind of solution. </p> <p>for me there is 2 points :</p> <p>1) bush is going to send those men, because they are preparing another reason for the patriot act to exist, aka they are going to protect their interest even more then before and part of this is going to war against Iran.</p> <p>2) bush is impeached, no war with Iran<br /> troops get back to the USA, and American citizens can start rebuild their own democracy.</p> You are completely right in your observation, here in Europe people also feel this is going to be even worst than any other kind of solution.

for me there is 2 points :

1) bush is going to send those men, because they are preparing another reason for the patriot act to exist, aka they are going to protect their interest even more then before and part of this is going to war against Iran.

2) bush is impeached, no war with Iran
troops get back to the USA, and American citizens can start rebuild their own democracy.

]]> http://personman.com/escalation_in_iraq#c43610