It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush Invokes Rules of "Castle Risk" Deploying 99 "Hidden Armies" for Self Governing Iraq

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   
In what can only be described as a brilliant tactical move, President Bush informed the world today of 99 extra (and possibly invisible
) Iraqi battalions ready to twart invading armies and win the hearts and minds of insurgents alike. The move was especially brilliant in the global geopolitical scheme of things since he waited until after we started playing Can the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg Invade Iraq? to invoke the optional and often overlooked Rule #5 of Parker Bros' "Castle Risk."


In secret, choose a territory where you will place your "Hidden Armies" - It may be any territory except one occupied by a castle. Write down the name on a piece of paper and slip it under the board game.


Bush 'encouraged' despite report on Iraqi troops
YahooNews.com
By Adam Entous
Sat Oct 1,10:18 AM ET


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush sought on Saturday to dispel concerns about the readiness of U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces, declaring himself "encouraged" even though his top generals say the number of battalions that can fight insurgents without help has dropped.

"I'm encouraged by the increasing size and capability of the Iraqi security forces. Today they have more than 100 battalions operating throughout the country, and our commanders report that the Iraqi forces are serving with increasing effectiveness," Bush said in his weekly radio address.


What Bush or may not be aware of however, is that's not how real geopolitical global conflict is played!

As US General George Casey testified to Congress this week, the Iraqis are now down to one (that's "1") combat-ready battalion ready to take over responsibility for an independent Iraq. And that's not progress. Not for $300 billion dollars anyway.

Top U.S. General Says Number of Capable Iraqi Battalions Drops to One
AP.com
By Liz Sidoti Associated Press Writer
Published: Sep 29, 2005


WASHINGTON (AP) - The number of Iraqi battalions capable of combat without U.S. support has dropped from three to one, the top American commander in Iraq told Congress Thursday, prompting Republicans to question whether U.S. troops will be able to withdraw next year.

Gen. George Casey, softening his previous comments that a "fairly substantial" pull out could begin next spring and summer, told lawmakers that troops could begin coming home from Iraq next year depending on conditions during and after the upcoming elections there.

"The next 75 days are going to be critical for what happens," Casey told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The Bush administration says training Iraqi security forces to defend their own country is the key to bringing home U.S. troops. But Republicans pressed Casey on whether the United States was backsliding in its efforts to train Iraqis.

In June, the Pentagon told lawmakers that three Iraqi battalions were fully trained, equipped and capable of operating independently. On Thursday, Casey said only one battalion is ready.

"It doesn't feel like progress," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.


What to do, what to do... Could I get a judge's ruling here?

I don't think President Bush should be allowed to play anymore.

[edit on 1-10-2005 by RANT]




posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 06:23 AM
link   
I wonder why the entire 101 Airborne Division is then Sent to Iraqi Area of Operation, if the Iraqi have 100 Combat Ready Battalions?

Hmmmm...

"There is something Rotten in the Land of Denmark..."



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
I wonder why the entire 101 Airborne Division is then Sent to Iraqi Area of Operation, if the Iraqi have 100 Combat Ready Battalions?

Hmmmm...

"There is something Rotten in the Land of Denmark..."


Well, Bush is playing a little shell game with us. Trying to pacify concerns about progress toward Iraqi independence and US troop withdrawl by showing how many AMERICAN forces are deployed.

We know that President Dipschit. That's the problem.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
We know that President Dipschit. That's the problem.

How does that Saying go:



George W. Bush: There's an old saying in Tennessee. I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee, that says: "Fool me once..."
George W. Bush: [pause]
George W. Bush: "... shame on...".
George W. Bush: [pause]
George W. Bush: "Shame on you..."
George W. Bush: [pause]
George W. Bush: "If fooled, you can't get fooled again."




posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   
bush sounds like the iraqi general during the war (forgot his name) that would make outlandish statements. does our govt think that the public is that stupid?? well, of course they do ... the pres lying to your face or at least being total misinformed.... nothing to see here citizen, move along, move along.......



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Bush has not desire to bring any American troops home no until halliburton and Chenny said so.

Remember they are the ones in charge, Bush is just playing with his toy soldiers at home thinking that "He is in charge".


When the civil war that is going on in Iraq makes the "Iraqi battalions" chose sides they will be ready, trained and willing to defense their territories.

Thanks to the billions of dollars of tax payer money that has been used to trained their ranks.




[edit on 2-10-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I was listening to a conference incvolving a genral and a politician (might have been Rumsfeld, I don't remember). They were trying to say that capability fluctuates, as with any military organization (100% correct), but they never got around to explaining how 99% fell backward instead of forward.
I learned some new tap dance moves by watching that conference so it wasn't a total wasted of my limited time on Earth.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Well now, y'all just don't know how to spin this right. To summarize:

Bush said:

"Today they have more than 100 battalions operating throughout the country"

..right after US General George Casey testified:

"the Iraqis are now down to one combat-ready battalion ready to take over responsibility for an independent Iraq."

...so it might be easy to think that Dubya is lying outright to the American people, but in fact, what he's saying is that there are 100 battalions operating, while the general is adding the truth that only one of these is combat ready.

So rather than think my President to be a liar, I will suppose that there are 99 non-combat-ready battalions in Iraq.






[edit on 2-10-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Remember, this is the same man who landed on the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln over two years ago to announce to a captive audience the end of major combat operations in Iraq (emphasis added).

Text Of Bush Speech

Coincidentally this was the very same day that Rumsfeld Declared Major Combat Over in Afghanistan, and all just in time to kickoff the runup to the midterm elections.

"In an announcement marking a major victory in America's ongoing war on terror, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld declared Thursday that "major combat activity" has ended in Afghanistan. Later in the day, from aboard an aircraft carrier in the Pacific Ocean, President Bush planned to announce that military combat is over in Iraq."

How positively chummy of them to stage the photo ops and press releases like that. Fits right in with the big picture in hindsight, and, obviously from this thread, they're still up to the same old tricks.

I guess the old saying applies: "What tangled webs we weave...."


[edit on 2-10-2005 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   
It’s misleading threads like this started by moderators that have really convinced me that this board is a DNC / Green Party / Leftist propaganda site. Let’s take the general’s breakout of units:



“Level 1 is fully independent, “capable of planning and executing operations, and sustaining itself, without coalition support.” This is a very high standard, and because it requires no coalition support in combat, whether logistical or in the form of indirect fire support. As reported this week, only one battalion operates at this level now, but the press accounts did not make clear what a difficult standard this is. Indeed, two other battalions had reached this level but were downgraded because of personnel changes (my sense was that a key officer was transferred).

A significant and growing number of Iraqi units are at Level 2, which is substantially, but not totally, independant. Level 2 units are “in the lead,”, "capable of planning, executing and sustaining counterinsurgency operations with some coalition support." These units are substantially independent, but still need some assistance with logistics and indirect fire support. However, they operate independently for most intents and purposes. Level 2 battalions now “own Haifa Street” in a way that only local units can, and another unit -- the armored battalion -- is policing the airport road. Level 2 units also run Karbala and Najaf security.

Level 3, “fighting alongside”: "capable of conducting counterinsurgency operations in conjunction with coalition units." The goal is to get most of these Level 3 units up to Level 2 in the next few months.

So, over 115 Army and special police battalions are in the fight, the majority of which are “fighting alongside.”



So we’ve had TWO level 1 units downgraded because they rotated some personal (probably logistics officers) and the a good number are handling most of the heavy work in fighting the day to day insurgency.

Bush was probably speaking in a very casual manner about the number of battalions and the general was being very specific about the number of battalions that met an almost impossible standard of operations.

Let’s take a peek at what the general had to say a bit later…



“General Patraeus said that they have given the media an enormous amount of information, including countless important metrics for measuring progress, but that it is largely ignored. He observed that the enemy “On many days it is impossible to break through the steady drumbeat of sensational attacks occurring in Baghdad throughout the country. The opening of the new military academy got no coverage at all, even though it was a big event with the whole Iraqi government in attendance."


Sites like this one are VERY guilty of this. Taking comments out of context, providing little or no research except lazy, biased, mass media sources that narrowly support their view.

The above information was EASY to find. It took all of 5 minutes of work to get it. Why do we have MODERATORS on this site who cannot do the same amount of critical analysis??? It’s amazing to me this thread was even allowed to be opened. Nothing about “Deny Ignorance” was supported in it. Indeed, “Spread Ignorance” seems to be notion supported here.



Link to full article if you are so inclinded to THINK instead of HATE!



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by clearmind
bush sounds like the iraqi general during the war (forgot his name) that would make outlandish statements.


You mean the one everyone calls Baghdad Bob?

Well, say hello to Baghdad Bush!



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrNice
It’s misleading threads like this started by moderators that have really convinced me that this board is a DNC / Green Party / Leftist propaganda site.


Being a moderator or super moderator here does not exclude us from having our own thoughts or opinions. Moderator staff has the same right to post material here as any member does.

There is no need to attack the author here, it does not help you make your case.

Please stay on topic and keep this discussion civil.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrNice
The above information was EASY to find. It took all of 5 minutes of work to get it.


Actually, it took you 72 hours and 5 minutes since your article by a totally different general was just posted today.

Sunday, October 02, 2005
Lt. Gen. David Petraeus speaks at Princeton



Why do we have MODERATORS on this site who cannot do the same amount of critical analysis???


Lack of a time machine. Although your additional comments from General "And Another Thing" don't change a thing. I reported what happened. General Casey testified to the Armed Services Committee last week we had one combat ready Iraqi battalion able to operate independently. That created a media and public firestorm. Bush went on the radio Saturday (when I posted that) to spew his half truths in response.

Your characterization of his half truths a day later as just that, half true, doesn't change the song and dance I reported one bit.


It’s amazing to me this thread was even allowed to be opened. Nothing about “Deny Ignorance” was supported in it. Indeed, “Spread Ignorance” seems to be notion supported here.


I think Bush spread ignorance when he pretended the concerns of Congress and the American people weren't valid.

"It doesn't feel like progress," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

And I think you're spreading ignorance now by supporting the shell game, not the truth. And no, it's not amazing to me at all that you are. Ignorance can be very appealing. Bush counts on it.


Link to full article if you are so inclinded to THINK instead of HATE!


Huh? "Full article" TigerHawk Blogspot 2 days later? Whatever Mr.Nice.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Excellent NICE, a shot of truth right between the eyes!

RANT, nobody will deny an opinion is your own personal thoughts and reason. But to start a thread, with incomplete information, and tout is AS complete...is just wrong.

Nice brings forth the COMPLETE article and quotes, and you poo-poo it as---ranting. Obviously, your article was full of statements taken out of context, with zero research done to confirm or deny the allegations. Nice simply completed the needed research with a 5 minute look-see, and came up with ALL the information YOU should have presented. Yet you get prissy and say "Actually, it took you 72 hours and 5 minutes...". Perhaps he just now read this thread

You asked for a Judges ruling...seems Nice found all the evidence and ruled against you.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Army
Excellent NICE, a shot of truth right between the eyes!

RANT, nobody will deny an opinion is your own personal thoughts and reason. But to start a thread, with incomplete information, and tout is AS complete...is just wrong.


What don't you get here? Two complete real news articles directly related to each other are linked in the original post. Indeed, that's the bulk of the post. Another 5% is a joke about Castle Risk.

Two days later someone finds a blog
just posted today responding to the issue by claiming Bush's half truth's are technically accurate and indeed half true (which was my point!) and chooses to take the inappropriate tact to attack the website and me as if something was misrepresented here.

Hogwash. Even you "Army" know this was shell game of misrepresentation on Bush's behalf in response to the highly public revelations by General Casey. Read the news articles. This wasn't a jolly old coincidence I happened to slap together to make Bush look like a white wash artist.

You call this a nice shot of truth right between the eyes?


Originally posted by MrNice
Bush was probably speaking in a very casual manner about the number of battalions and the general was being very specific about the number of battalions


What is wrong with you people?


And I'm being irresponsible?



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   
It doesn't matter, maybe next time the thread on Bush should start with a nice prayer to the Bush supporters.

Still doesn't take the fact that the so call readiness of the Iraqi American lead troops are hanging by the strings and Iraq is and will remain the mess that bush made off.


Then again Bush foot is where his mouth is anyway and his screams of victories clearly prove that his mind his foot and his mouth are not in the right places.




Bush was probably speaking in a very casual manner about the number of battalions and the general was being very specific about the number of battalions


Really!!!!! since when Bush has a sense of humor, since the beginning of this war Bush, condi, Rumsfeld, cheney and the Generals can not keep track of each others and their disparities.


The faithful followers don't stop to amazed me.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   
you go rant
i guess it is easy to forget who we are talking about...a federal govt that has shown over and over that it has decived, lied and streched the 'truth' in order to further its conquests. i guess it would be like saying that amerika has a 300 million man army ................

iraq will be a permentant station for amerikan troops..just like korea, afganistan, bosnia.

..and don't think that things will change after the next....'election' in amerika. same poop..different pooper..................



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
"Half truths"? What exactly did Bush "half lie" about?

He said there are 100 battalions of Iraqi troops currently in operation in Iraq. Total truth, undeniable.

GEN Casey said there is one combat battalion available to cunduct operations without US support, down from three. Total truth, undeniable.

Mr. Nice presented a more complete report on what exactly the earlier reports covered. In his research, he found that there are indeed 100 Iraqi Army battalions currently in operations in Iraq. He also found out, that there were THREE totally independant battalions ready for combat operations, but two were downgraded due to staffing changes. Total truth, undeniable.

If the AP and Reuters reporters failed to ask better or more questions...or only reported what they wanted to...is no condemnation of President Bush or GEN Casey's words, as you would want us to believe by your post.

Mr. Nice gave you the complete story----regardless of when he found it, or when it was put out.

BTW, I would like to know how you are a self proclaimed expert in geopolitical global conflict? Perhaps too much playing of "Rise of Empires"? Have you been to Iraq lately to talk to any locals or Iraqi soldiers, and ask them how much better their country is ever since they have the freedom to vote on their own government and leaders?

I have.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Army
BTW, I would like to know how you are a self proclaimed expert in geopolitical global conflict? Perhaps too much playing of "Rise of Empires"? Have you been to Iraq lately to talk to any locals or Iraqi soldiers, and ask them how much better their country is ever since they have the freedom to vote on their own government and leaders?

I have.


I'm not an expert on geopolitcal conflict. I'm an expert at smelling bull#. And like Bush, you're full of it.

The best I can imagine is that you simply don't do "nuance" very well, much like the Armies of the right that couldn't find a civil liberty in the Constitution with CliffsNotes and a flashlight.

Thus here's the idiot's guide to this post:

Last week there were growing concerns over progress at the Iraqi apple juice stand, because it was revealed the Iraqis were down to one apple.

In response...


President George W. Bush sought on Saturday to dispel concerns about the readiness of [apples for a self sustaining Iraqi apple juice stand], declaring himself "encouraged" even though his top [farmers] say the number of [apples] that can fight [thirst] without [US farmer support] has dropped.

"I'm encouraged by the increasing size and capability of the Iraqi [apple juice stand]. Today they have more than 100 [ORANGES] operating throughout the country, and our [farmers] report that the Iraqi [ORANGES] are serving with increasing [tastiness]," Bush said in his weekly radio address.


Now, as pitiful as Bush's deflection (and your own) sounds, let's make it even more accurate and replace "ORANGES" with "APPLE SEEDS" still years away from producing any ACTUAL JUICE.

Yes, it's technically accurate on Bush's part. It's a half truth deflecting the spirit of the situation Bush was pretending to address, which was concerns over progress. And I'm sure it gives you great joy to hear our fearless leader so nonresponsive to the concerns of the American people over Iraqi progress, or lack of same.

But I'm not buying the orange juice.

[edit on 3-10-2005 by RANT]



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
... that couldn't find a civil liberty in the Constitution with CliffsNotes and a flashlight.

ROFLMAO! Do you have a list of these somewhere ar are you making them up? If so, you should be on stage!




Yes, it's technically accurate on Bush's part. It's a half truth deflecting the spirit of the situation Bush was pretending to address, which was concerns over progress.


He's good at this because his programmers teach him what to focus on.



But I'm not buying the orange juice.


Not even the pulpy kind?

I don't really have anything to add, I just laughed so hard I had to comment.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join