I started off as an avid supporter of Bush, even after the war started. Then a bit after the war started I had a change of heart and really didn't like him. Now in general I think he's "ok" as in "about average" and I think the Iraq thing was the right thing to do for many reasons (none of which is WMD). However the problem I have with Bush and the wars is he didn't do them right. An ex-Marine friend of mine likes to say "come hard or don't come at all" which is an adaptation of "anything worth doing is worth doing right" or whatever other variation you prefer. And that's Bush's problem - he did Iraq and Afganistan half ass. So you want to do the Afganistan and Iraq war ? Fine. You want to not send the man power needed ? That's not cool - to say the least. Anyways - thats why I don't like Bush in general
Like in history to get the job done you have to 'take the gloves off' and that has not happended in Iraq and Afghanistan Politics and politicians have got sidetracked from what was the objectives
What the hell? Just because you can invade a country, you would do it? There is no difference if you rape and pillage half ass vs. full force. It is still wrong.
Here is the deal people, Bush keeps troops at home and in other countries (peace keepers). You see their needs to be troops at home to deal with any incoming threat to the home land. With the North Korea being so unstable it is especially important. If I were Bush I would use the minimum required troops to get iraq done also. I am not saying he is right or wrong about these wars, that is not for me to judge but what I am saying is in my honest opinion he is doing the right thing keeping America well protected.
I disagree - by using more troops we get the job done faster for less money and a good fast win gets moral way up. And a good fast job leaves more troops available in the long run. Saving 20,000 or 30,000 or whatever troops in case of N Korea isn't much since they have like a million man army. No it's about resouces, power/control and a bit of an ego game - pretty much the story of every war or battle fought. Nothing new here. And I think the idea of having a bit more control in the middle east + more resources is a good idea. Bravo on the idea BOO on the execution.
I. Bush was spot on with the Axis of Evil -- although he should have kept that little speech in house and not used it to infuriate others. II. Iraq had nothing to do with our war on terrorism nor was it a major cause for concern (read: Iran and N. Korea). III. Still, had we began pulling out after the regime was toppled, we would not be in this mess. Decent ideas can become ugly situations when planning and execution are poor. IV. Bush is a spender in Republican clothes, but that's another matter.
One thing we need to remember people is Americas primary concern "ITSELF" by deploying too many troops leaves its borders wide open and Bush did not want to risk that. I understand the reasons for minimum troops because at the end of the day they can always pull out of iraq with little loss in comparison to home soil US devistation.
Congrats, you now qualify as an american who needs the government to wipe your butt....welcome to communism.