A Humble Suggestion- Troops in Iraq

[Twilight Wolf]

President Bush proposes that the number of troops increase in Iraq by 20,000.  And you know what?  I perfectly agree.  It seems like a great idea.  More troops means more securities, and more bodies to find those filthy Islamic Terrorists that threaten our country with their violent religion that is intolerant of infedels.  More bodies to help protect the righteous Iraqi citizens who are trying to establish a democracy- the only type of government proven to work- after all, the United States has one, and who dares oppose the United States?  No one, that's who.  

But why stop there?  Why not just occupy Iraq?  WE can make it work better as a democracy and elect a good, well-raised Christian with good Christian values.  And after all, who better to help run a democracy than the longest running democracy in the world today?  Great Britain does not count, they have a king.  We have a president who held a rubber stamp.  Notice the subtle difference.  But we can do it EVEN better in Iraq.  We can make sure that the president elect and the congress which we implement, as well as the districts we draw up arbitrarily completely ignoring ethinc and religious divides works so that the majority goes to the good, well-raised Christians who we know to be morally superior to any of those filthy Muslims who are only out to destroy the United States.

We could go even further than that.  Why not just make Iraq the fifty first state?  They have oil.  We can increase our domestic oil, which means for you, the consumer, lower oil prices.  While this would hurt other economic aspects, LOWER GAS PRICES, and cause there to be a standing army in the chaotic middle east, LOWER GAS PRICES, which will probably cause need for a draft, LOWER GAS PRICES, a decrease in social security, LOWER GAS PRICES, less health benefits, LOWER GAS PRICES, and an environment which will eventually be destroyed due to a destruction of the carbon cycle LOWER GAS PRICES.  AND, we can search for Weapons of Mass Destruction while we are there as well.  After all, that is why we went into Iraq in the first place- they do have weapons of mass destruction somewhere, you know.  Saddam getting hanged was a mere consequence.  But it was justified- he was a terrorist and a horrible dictator who suppressed his people and threatened the freedom of America- the freedom to security, that is.  The right to freedom in your own home is nonexistent and whoever informed of such a freedom is a terrorist who hates America.  

This will, in turn, allow us to establish a sphere of influence in the chaotic Middle East, which is full of Islamic terrorists who oppose the United States.  It's in the Qu'ran.  Read it.  What will this allow us to do?  Make the world a safer place from terrorists.  Because terrorists will one day die out and will not always hold a deeper resolve- it's well known they are superficial and will back off like a bully if you stand up to them.  And then, we can repeat this process for other countires, wasting billions of your tax dollars, so that YOU can get LOWER GAS PRICES.  LOWER GAS PRICES mean more money in your pocket now.  Granted you won't have much for a retirement LOWER GAS PRICES NOW!  After all, Imperialism needs to make a return to the 21st century.  We all want to be good imperialists, don't we?  Those against imperialism are working for the terrorists.  And are un-american.  But, we can get their opinion- with a proposal I like to call the 100 flowers campaign.  Then we can use their input, and teach everyone in school how to be a good imperialist, and create a blue guard across the country, to ensure that there are no un-american terrorists who oppose imperialism.  The Imperialist party will unite the United States, and allow people to move up in ranks, which can be inherited, only if the person attained a certain rank.  This will, ofcourse, guarantee loyalty to the government, and allow incentive for people to work, after their mandatory military service LOWER GAS PRICES.

Thus, we should definitely increase troop levels in Iraq as a segway to LOWER GAS PRICES.  Because that's what matters to you, the citizen of the United States.

[Fleamo]

Yeah that plan to surge the troops to ensure quick victory.  What was the plan called?

Oh yeah, Operation Forward Together.

When did that fail?  October?

Man we forget these things quick.

[Adam]

Sounds like a Modest Proposal to me, Mr. Swift.

Really, though, I'm not to fond of massive increases in the number of troops in Iraq, unless it's absolutely necessary.  And there's really not much more to say than that, 'cause while satire may be an enjoyable read, it doesn't exactly make for a great argument.

[Wiired]

Damn, I was about to post this.

I also completely agree with Bush's decision, but I won't type the long post I had planned because you can just read the one above.

However, The King of England has no power AT ALL, he is just there for show, so to speak.

I also don't think we should go and make Iraq a fifty first state. If we did that, we'd anger the surrounding countries even more...

Unless of course, Iraq wanted to become one.

[Assault on Mind]

Who wants to be apart of America? I think most of the countries in the world hate us (including Japan) But I wish someone from Britain or England whatever you call it seeing as I forgot the modern day term for your country (I only know mine because I live in it) to read this post and offer their suggestion. I wish the whole world would make up their damn mind and see what will happen if the troops leave. I can almost gurantee you it wont get better... almost.

[Bidet to you sir]

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3847051.stm

Why such a gap, it can't be "theres more americans" because there are still more than 3000 British soldiers in Iraq, so the insurgency should have killed (theoretically) the same amount, unless one simple reason, the soldiers being sent into Iraq are still being taugh that it is a "war", it is not a war, it is a peace keeping operation, and they're not being taught how to fight the enemy in that sort of situation.
My father is an ex-soldier he served in peace keeping operations in Kossovo, Northern Ireland and Bosnia, he's been shot at, had petrol bombs thrown at him by the IRA, the fact is though, due to it being a peace keeping operation he didn't deal with it like he would in a war, the first rule after a war is over (atleast in the British army) is to win the hearts and minds of the people, I don't think the American forces are doing this at the moment, and my reasoning behind this is due to one thing, American forces have a lack of experience in this situation, you haven't had to have a large station of troops permenantly in a country after a war has ended since Korea, and I'm sure you're well aware there are no soldiers from the korean war in the US forces today.

Sending 20000 troops in is just going to cause more deaths unless the American government and heads of the armed forces changes their view on what is key to keeping Iraq safe now.
I'm not saying the British forces are perfect or anything, I'm merely saying the US government really needs to take a look at what Britain, Nato, for gods sake even the Canadians and the UN forces have done in the past.

[Fleamo]

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3847051.stm

Why such a gap, it can't be "theres more americans" because there are still more than 3000 British soldiers in Iraq, so the insurgency should have killed (theoretically) the same amount, unless one simple reason, the soldiers being sent into Iraq are still being taugh that it is a "war", it is not a war, it is a peace keeping operation, and they're not being taught how to fight the enemy in that sort of situation.

Or, insurgents specifically target Americans, the evil empire occupying them most forcefully.

Actually though, there are 140,000ish American troops and 3000ish British troops...yeah, I would say "theres more americans" would be the reason for such a death gap.  Say the insurgents kill 95 guys.  There are roughly 47x the number of Americans than British.  So...?

Sending 20000 troops in is just going to cause more deaths unless the American government and heads of the armed forces changes their view on what is key to keeping Iraq safe now.

I agree but for different reasons.  The "surge" isn't bringing levels any higher than [certain] other times...if we couldn't win in 2k3 when we had these troops...the outlook is not so good.

I'm not saying the British forces are perfect or anything, I'm merely saying the US government really needs to take a look at what Britain, Nato, for gods sake even the Canadians and the UN forces have done in the past.

For future reference to NATO's work regarding the Middle East: See Afghanistan.