Discussion

• May 1, 2006

  10:02 AM

  harry palm writes:

  NO we need them to invade Iran. More troops would just have the liberals saying we put to many moving targets in Iraq. Saddam is gone, let these nutty muslims have their civil war, we arm both sides to the teeth and they can kill each other all day long while we pump their oil.

• May 1, 2006

  10:13 AM

  Gunny Bob writes:

  ANTI-IRAQI-FREEDOM GROUPS DEMAND MILITARY ACTION
  
  Insist US Sends Troops To Kill Arab Terrorists In Darfur, But Also Insist US Troops Stop Killing Arab Terrorists In Iraq
  
  Saddam Hussein arranged the deaths of more than 5 times the number of people who have died in factional warfare in Sudan.
  
  Nevertheless, groups vehemently against Iraqis being freed with US military might are now calling for that same military to invade Sudan and kill Arab terrorists who are killing non-Arab Sudanese.
  
  Naturally, they are being led by actor George Clooney, who refuses to sell his huge villa on Italy's Lake Como to pay for food, medicine and shelter for the non-Arab Sudanese.
  
  Ah, the hypocrisy.

• May 1, 2006

  10:46 AM

  Steve DiSciullo writes:

  Should we have sent more troops to Iraq? Perhaps, but we'll never know. We can't know the outcomes of options not taken. We do know that more troops would have meant more lead time prior to the invasion, more targets for the enemy, and according to some, more defiance from the populace. Once we lost permission to enter Iraq through Turkey, sending more troops would have been difficult and perhaps dangerous as all forces had to enter from the South. We obviously didn't need more troops to defeat the Iraqi forces. Would more troops have helped against the insurgents and Zarqawi? Perhaps, but would they also have enraged the general populace? Perhaps. Does any of this matter now? No.

• May 1, 2006

  11:57 AM

  jay writes:

  Of course we didn't need more troops for the actual invasion of Iraq. That battleplan had been in place long before 9/11 (AGAIN, which Iraq had nothing to do with) and had been refined to be as efficient as possible. Unfortunately where we dropped the ball was planning for the aftermath of said invasion....but that shouldn't have been a surprise because many leading military experts, including Powell, repeatedly told W and Co. that we were woefully unprepared and undermanned for such an eventuality. What's sad and frustrating is that we're hearing a steady drumbeat of propaganda from the administration and the conservative base saying "we couldn't have known" or "hindsight is 20/20", when in truth this adminstration specifically denied requests for more troops before the war began. Now we're unable to hold the ground that we take, we're unable to adequately guard the oil pipelines that were to finance the reconstruction and ultimately lower oil and gas costs, and this mistake has led to more troop casualties, not reduced them as many on the right want to believe. For those of you that blindly support this administration's handling of this conflict and who have short memories...we were in a situation before when the civilian/political leadership in charge of a war chose to ignore the advice of military experts...it was called Vietnam. If you don't learn from history, it's destined to repeat itself.

• May 1, 2006

  1:22 PM

  harry palm writes:

  I didnt realize denver was so full of military planners who have the answers......You liberals cant even win an election, what makes you think you have any insight into how to fight a war?

• May 1, 2006

  1:45 PM

  ASK writes:

  Being a liberal, a soldier and having been in Iraq I firmly believe we needed more troops on the ground. One of my most vivid memories was driving through a Baghdad neighborhood to pick up a wounded and stepping out to see hundreds of people who could have overwhelmed us in an instance - especially because we had only three gunners to cover us.

  Many of the soldiers in Iraq are unhappy about being there and do not understand the reasons (as they continue to change).

  Many of the soldiers are ashamed that Bush would fly onto an aircraft carrier, three years ago today, to declare Mission Accomplished.

  With more troops we could have averted looting, secured oil pipelines, established security earlier so positive civic planning could have happened earlier rather than having to react to the insurgency.

  I personally agree that Saddam was horrible, I think it is good he is gone, I know we are not safer as a result of this war. In my opinion it is too late to increase troop strength and when we do leave, we will have left the country broken and it will be our fault.
  

• May 1, 2006

  2:04 PM

  994 days to go writes:

  I think the advice of nine generals is a pretty good start harry. When one of them was a past Secretary of State for the Bush Administration I think he knows the situation real well. What makes you think you know more that the nine generals and most policy think tanks harry? I really am excited about the new push to letting Iraq split into three autonomous regions with shares of oil revenue. I think that is what I have been saying for three years now so it is nice to hear someone with a plan that includes an eventual peace in Iraq. Now I hope Bush's fumbling has not given Al Quiada members legitimacy in Iraq’s new government. That would be sad but par for Bush. If they do let Iraq partition, be ready for the shock in Iran. The government or Iran may become so unstable with pressure to split internally that their Nuclear BS may just go away. If you want to understand what I am saying try reading at www.cia.gov the world fact book and learn about this region. Also, study the history of this region that has been partitioned by empires but works well as small states.

• May 1, 2006

  4:22 PM

  Just sayin' writes:

  As long as we have 20/20 hindsight we should have never gone to war, let alone sent more troops. There were no WMD's and no "imminent threat". Chimpy McFlightsuit and his cronies were going to war in Iraq regardless. It is the single biggest blunder of foreign policy in US history. Doofuses like Harry should stop emulating their chickenhawk heroes and actually go fight this nonsense that they support.

• May 1, 2006

  4:38 PM

  jay writes:

  Guess Gunny Bob didn't have any more propaganda...er....information to share on the subject. Thanks for checkin in though Bob.

• May 2, 2006

  11:43 AM

  Hornet writes:

  Gunny-
  So why are we in Iraq again Gunny? Sounds like you don't want to eat anything you hyped up on your show 3 years ago. Well, as long as we are there on a lie, Saddam was a bad person is pretty much what you bark up the tree today.
  Are you sure we aren't there to make some oil deals for Bush's personal friends and family-his black tie wearing base. Help the bottom line of Haliburton and Exxon/Mobil/Shell?
  Oh, we kinda need mititary bases to land and refuel as U.S. of A tries to conquer the world. How many bases Gunny?
  What about religion Gunny? R U sure your dried out drunk of a president isn't trying to make another religious war? You being a war hero and know everything can't get Bush on the telephone yet Dobson has a direct line to the Whitehouse. Why stop bible thumping here in the states, take it to the Middle East and call it a war on terror.

  
  

• May 2, 2006

  1:10 PM

  peter303 writes:

  The "correct" number to send is well known in military science school, based on what the British Empire used in its pacifications. Defense secretary Cheney sent in the correct number of 600,000 troops during the first gulf war. However, Rumsfeld thought a "modern, technological, sleek" army could get along with a third of this. He turned out to be wrong, thereby letting a strong underground oppposition get entrenched. I heard this debate at the beginning of the second Iraq war and its is documented in Woodward's "Plan of Attack" book.

• May 2, 2006

  10:35 PM

  BigSteve writes:

  Do we even have 600,000 troops?