Comments on: We want our troops back, but when? http://desinotes.com/we-want-our-troops-back-but-when/ Internet, Technology, Personal Ramblings, Humour Fri, 18 May 2012 07:25:04 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Sunny http://desinotes.com/we-want-our-troops-back-but-when/comment-page-1/#comment-307 Sunny Sat, 09 Dec 2006 19:37:17 +0000 http://desinotes.com/2006/12/03/we-want-our-troops-back-but-when/#comment-307 She's a smart girl and this is her opinion about the war. I don't know why she hasn't responded to your comment yet. She’s a smart girl and this is her opinion about the war. I don’t know why she hasn’t responded to your comment yet.

]]> By: MODERN b0i http://desinotes.com/we-want-our-troops-back-but-when/comment-page-1/#comment-270 MODERN b0i Mon, 04 Dec 2006 07:21:05 +0000 http://desinotes.com/2006/12/03/we-want-our-troops-back-but-when/#comment-270 Paragraph two reads: "Bush should really think about more effective plans with the little time he has left in office to gain back the publics support." Bush has no need to "gain back public support," he is not concerned with re-election. The democrats got elected touting an Iraqi exit plan they know they can't follow through with as it would leave a power vacuum that might be filled with an anti-American dictator. This piece is weak when arguing about the civil war. It states that the U.S. cannot prevent a civil war in Iraq, then it states that without Al-Sadr removed civil war cannot be avoided--this somewhat implies that REMOVING Al-Sadr would PREVENT civil war--this causes confusion and needs clarification. The last paragraph reads: "It doesn’t seem like a civil war but more of a religious war between Sunnis and Shiites." This implies that Iraq IS ALREADY IN CIVIL WAR when previous paragraphs stated Iraq is heading into civil war, this creates confusion. "We can keep sending troops in so they can be killed or we can bring them home." Forcing the reader to choose strictly from two choices is faulty reasoning and only undermines the argument. Nobody in the U.S. is sending troops to Iraq SPECIFICALLY "so they can be killed." "Bush needs to admit he was wrong and ask other countries for help." The U.S. is not the only supplier of troops in Iraq, so the type of help Bush needs to ask for also needs clarification. Also, this piece attacks President Bush's persona every time it says he needs to admit he's wrong--this again only serves to undermine the credibility of the author and the argument. The purpose of this explanation needs to be clarified, especially when President Bush has clearly admitted to being mislead about Weapons of Mass Destruction and he's stated clearly he believes his plan is working. Many believe what is going on in Iraq is past the "civil war" status. It is much worse and it is not a civil war is as civil war is highly organized and typically fought between two distinct sides, the internal conflict in Iraq is highly fragmented and often fought by mercenaries and people from outside Iraq. Lastly, the title "We want our troops back, but when?" goes directly against the argument of the piece. The piece is arguing FOR an immediate withdraw but the title implies a lack of urgency with the "bug when?" I hope this feedback helps this "special girl in your life." Paragraph two reads:
“Bush should really think about more effective plans with the little time he has left in office to gain back the publics support.”

Bush has no need to “gain back public support,” he is not concerned with re-election.

The democrats got elected touting an Iraqi exit plan they know they can’t follow through with as it would leave a power vacuum that might be filled with an anti-American dictator.

This piece is weak when arguing about the civil war.

It states that the U.S. cannot prevent a civil war in Iraq, then it states that without Al-Sadr removed civil war cannot be avoided–this somewhat implies that REMOVING Al-Sadr would PREVENT civil war–this causes confusion and needs clarification.

The last paragraph reads:
“It doesn’t seem like a civil war but more of a religious war between Sunnis and Shiites.”

This implies that Iraq IS ALREADY IN CIVIL WAR when previous paragraphs stated Iraq is heading into civil war, this creates confusion.

“We can keep sending troops in so they can be killed or we can bring them home.”

Forcing the reader to choose strictly from two choices is faulty reasoning and only undermines the argument. Nobody in the U.S. is sending troops to Iraq SPECIFICALLY “so they can be killed.”

“Bush needs to admit he was wrong and ask other countries for help.”

The U.S. is not the only supplier of troops in Iraq, so the type of help Bush needs to ask for also needs clarification.

Also, this piece attacks President Bush’s persona every time it says he needs to admit he’s wrong–this again only serves to undermine the credibility of the author and the argument. The purpose of this explanation needs to be clarified, especially when President Bush has clearly admitted to being mislead about Weapons of Mass Destruction and he’s stated clearly he believes his plan is working.

Many believe what is going on in Iraq is past the “civil war” status. It is much worse and it is not a civil war is as civil war is highly organized and typically fought between two distinct sides, the internal conflict in Iraq is highly fragmented and often fought by mercenaries and people from outside Iraq.

Lastly, the title “We want our troops back, but when?” goes directly against the argument of the piece. The piece is arguing FOR an immediate withdraw but the title implies a lack of urgency with the “bug when?”

I hope this feedback helps this “special girl in your life.”

]]>