Tuesday, January 09, 2007

To surge or not to surge.


Baghdad seems to be rising in violence, Shiite and Sunni Islamic sects have plunged into Civil War and the US is considering sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq. What has brought us to this point? Why are so many split on the issue of trying to “win” the war in Iraq? According to today’s NYTimes how is the prospect of increasing troops splitting the newly elected majority of the Democratic congress? Michael once again was outspoken during class, “ We are never going to win the war in Iraq….” He also made the point that the US at least owes it to the people there to leave them with a peaceful country. There is no right answer here, but I would like to know what each of you think about our possible increase in troop levels.

When President George Bush addresses the nation on Wednesday night at 9pm what will he probably say to the country?

18 comments:

Famous Edwin Genao said...

The important thing is that Senator Kennedy wants to take some power away from President Bush by requiring him to check with Congress before sending more troops to Iraq. He’s almost saying let’s vote on the war again. He thinks Congress should have more power here.
Democrats are split though. The ones that are up for re-election are opposed to this plan. They don’t want to be against the soldiers we already have there. Kennedy has been in Congress for 45 years he doesn’t have to worry about re-election.
Nobody knows what to do though.

nyshee... said...

i think that mr bush wants to have the troops in iraq so that we make more money off da oil.. but why be there only for the oil if the iraq are about to kill each other over land and if we pull out now the middle east will be a real big mess. now it's like we are at war all over again from the start and doesnt make any sense and that he's thinking that the congress have the power in the progress of the troops going there for the first time. now when the spilts with the rep and dec what will be next for da next presdient>?

Superfly said...

But this vote doesn't mean anything. Yes, they're making a declaration of sorts, but what are they doing? Are they acting on it? Are they going to pull funding from the war? I don't think so. This is just a show (beside what Kennedy is doing with legislature and such) for the American people. It looks like they're doing something. "Vote" is a powerful verb, it shows action. But, here, I think it is a misleading political move to make it look like people are trying to do something to end this war. I wonder what type vehicle Kennedy will arrive in...

Mr Tesler said...

This is great. Can I have my students post their reactions to this, too?

W Brown said...

Comment away Mr. T

Sharkey said...

What’s the point of putting more troops in Iraq. That means more troops are going to die and the government is paying to have this done. The young troops will have a less time to live. The U.S. did what they had to do and that was terminating Saddam Hussein. Now let the two groups fight for what they want to do in their own country. The U.S. doesn’t have to be there to police the country. That’s why Iraq has their own army. What will happen if we go to war with Somalia. That means that bush is going to have to put troops over there and that will cost even more money and deaths. Why not finish one war first before starting another. The U.S. was the first to strike in Somalia and we destroyed their land and we have to go fix it know. Then we would have to police that country too.

kaitlyn said...

I agree with what joanna said about how since the vote doesn't count, will they pretend to count it and do what the majority said? I think it's a waste of time to vote on something that the vote will not change. It's unfair to the public because so people might be confused with that congress wants to accomplish. Like joanna said about how the word vote is powerful, and shows action, but I think an ever more powerful word is change. Will this new congress change things? Or will it become a push and pull between them and the president? When we discussed briefly what had happened in Baghdad during class i predicted that bush would use it toward his advantage. I thought that maybe he'd say how we need more troops because of the new violence in an area that was considered safe. In a way he did, I was surprised by how he admitted that things are not working, but I don't think 20,000 more troops will make a difference. I believe that people who do not want change will never want change, and will hurt the ones that do. We cannot be a presence over there forever. Eventually we will have to pull out and let them fight their own battles. Hoepefully the outcome won't be horrible.

gi0v@nni said...

What Mr. Bush is trying to do he is trying to make profit from the war thats going on. I think what Senator Kennedy is trying to do is very smart the move that he's making is very smart. Senator Kennedy honestly i think he should be the one making the calls. I know if we send our troops to iraq the main reason is going to be for oil, but all were is digging are self into a bigger and bigger whole that theres going to be a point where were not going to be able to come out of that whole. Thats the way i see us going for this country. Soon theres going to be no troops because alot of people are gonna start to see the real reason why bush fights (which is for profiting private organizations)

Lisa-Marie's Hot and T.k Rules said...

Ok here's the deal Bush is such a terible president if he were any worse we would be having nuclear bombs dropped on us every day. I'm astonished that it took him that long to relize what stupid and idiotic things he has done.He has lied to our people and keeps on lying. Though I know there is no way we can actually pull out this war but this is no way to stay in. Were going to protect Iraq and help them be stong and when or IF the do we'll leave. And Thatis crap should they not help them selfs, and taking 21,000 more unperpared troops from their familys is like the biggest mistakes. Bush does not have a clue what to do. He needs to go hunting with his father and think of a more positive way to destroy our nation. Or Why not actually find Osama? Cannot wait till 2008 when hopefully an demacratic can acutally lead this nation(no disrepect but Repulicans suck.)

jonathank said...

I say tat President Bush is trying to make the soldiers stay in Iraq to protect the citizens in Iraq until the reconstruction is over. But, everybody in the world saw what happened on Sept. 11th, 2001 and if the US is still in Iraq, the Sept. 11th, 2001 wouldn't happen again. If we didn't stay in Iraq, then the Sept. 11th, 2001 would happen again and more and more people will get killed.

Anonymous said...

I agree with kaitlyn and how she said that the new congress might not even make a difference in how things are going in Iraq, or even the way things are going in general. What I’m saying is that even if a new president came (which couldn’t be soon enough for me) we still wouldn’t be able to fix the problems in Iraq now. We are in way too deep to get out even remotely fast enough. If we handled things the right way, we wouldn’t be anywhere near Iraq. We’d be finding Osama Bin Laden instead of trying to kill everyone that crosses our path in Iraq.

by the way, its julia from your hour 5 class. :D

Anonymous said...

I think that this war is useless. If you study the Islamic religion, the shiite and sunni have been against each other in war and other affairs for centuries. And the fact that he is taking sides with shiites proves that he is in fact a president who lives up to his c average grade. In the islamic religion Shiites believe
in blood succeeders which means it isnt quite democratic. Sunni on the other hand want democracy. I think that president Bush should first learn history and then choose sides. Just because Saddam was sunni doesnt mean all sunnis are "extremists". And if he DID do his history research, then i think, that his strategies are bad. He already had many soldiers killed, and by putting in more soldiers he is going to try a war that cannot be stopped almost. He is endangering out troops. Bush is a dimwit, and just wants oil and money. We need a better leader, and start thinking about the world. Wars ISNT everything, as Al Gore said. we need to think about the world, global warming is a more likely factor than war to kill us in 50 years and drown half our nation. If i could i would say to Bush, think more about the future, not your business, and ignorant war. Try to make us survive in 50 years.

yea... im done... -Navin

The King said...

I think bush is a confused fool. He hasnt done his homework. IF he had he would have known that shiite and sunnis have ben against each other in war and other affairs for centuries. He would have also known that the people he is defending, the shiites are not democratic by nature. they believe in blood succeeders. not so democratic, where as sunni is democratic. I think if he had known this he wouldnt have continued with the troops unless he really does live upto to his C average. He wouldnt have gotten involved in an affair which has been going on for centuries. He also has shown which side he has chosen, by saying we must help the shiites, and stop the sunni "extremists". Just because Saddam was a sunni doesnt mean all sunni are extremists. I think he should stop all this nonsense and turn on his brain for once and stop trying to sacrifice so many soldiers. He should turn his head to more important matters such as the fact that in 50 years most of the united states will be under water. Global Warming is more of a threat to us than these childish sacrifices he is making. I personally think we went wrong in not having Al Gore as our President. In his documentary, and inconvenient world, he has shown that the world is much more important to save than to gamble with our soldiers. We should start funding the 300 billion dollars spent each week on making our soldiers die, on producing efficient technology that wont harm our environment. In conclusion, Bush is making many mistakes, and he needs to realize what they are and fix them.

-Navin Islam( this whole thing has nothing to do with my name >.>)

Mr Tesler said...

I have to agree w/Mr. Brown here, and request that as a community of students who are studying journalism (WJPS), we don't resort to insults. It's very easy to simply dismiss someone as "stupid," or as a "dimwit."

I understand some of you feel very strongly about the war. However, let's use facts instead of insults to make our points.

simone wjps said...

i believe thst bush doest know what hes doing he shouldnt got involed with the affair that has been going on for centuries!! the shiite are not democratic by nature.he need to stop all this drama that is going on and he need to stop killing al these soliders he did what he did and killed sadam
i think we would been better off with al gore as our pesident=)

Anonymous said...

I don't really know what to say about
G.Bush because i think he is a maniac . I agree with Navin that Bush really doesn't really know when to ming his own business. This is one of those time when we stay neutral. Bush doesn't care about America. Or he would have done something to make people realize that we are in serious trouble. All of us might die because of global warming. But no he has to mind other peoples business. Watch him suffer in the global warming and then I will laugh at him. Al Gore was better at least he warned us about it.

Parth Patel

said...

i feel the speech by president bush was quite interesting. i feel that he will make a speech quite soon saying that hes going to be sending more troops to iraq sooner than later..i feel though however, if more troops are sent over there it maybe not a good thing b/c MOREEE violence might erupt and more deaths and we just really want to send our troops safely home..<3

said...

i think he will talk about sending more troops to iraq and trying to make new plans in the country so it will recover better and will get sstronger