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.

 

US 'planning to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq for many years'

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   

US 'planning to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq for many years'
By Francis Harris in Washington
(Filed: 12/06/2006)

America plans to retain a garrison of 50,000 troops, one tenth of its entire army, in Iraq for years to come, according to US media reports.

The revelation came as George W Bush summoned his top political, military and intelligence aides to a summit on Iraq's future today at the presidential retreat at Camp David.

America has indicated that it may raise troop levels in Iraq in the short-term

Tomorrow the Americans will talk by video link to Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq's prime minister, and members of his cabinet, as well as American military commanders in Iraq.

The meeting marks the highest profile discussion of Iraq's future so far, and reflects the Bush administration's determination to exploit the two most promising developments in Iraq for many months - the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qa'eda in Iraq, and the completion of the first permanent post-war cabinet.

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2006/06/12/wirq12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/12/ixnews.html



don't worry guys...now we'll be kept safe!


did anyone actually think they would leave? I don't see this changing unless the people stand up to it

[edit on 12-6-2006 by invisibleplane]

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 13/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by invisibleplane


did anyone actually think they would leave? I don't see this changing unless the people stand up to it



Think anyone thought American troops would have left Saudi Arabia?
After all its the the largest exporter of oil. I wonder why we left that country.....



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by invisibleplane


did anyone actually think they would leave? I don't see this changing unless the people stand up to it



Think anyone thought American troops would have left Saudi Arabia?
After all its the the largest exporter of oil. I wonder why we left that country.....


since you didn't have anything else to say, should i assume this doesn't bother you? or would you like to add on



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Of course the US will have a long term pressence in Iraq. The US is still in the Balkans, and that started years ago.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by invisibleplane
since you didn't have anything else to say, should i assume this doesn't bother you? or would you like to add on


Think of this way, its long term presence but it ain't forever.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by invisibleplane
since you didn't have anything else to say, should i assume this doesn't bother you? or would you like to add on


Think of this way, its long term presence but it ain't forever.


ok but how about..more troops+longer stay=more depleted uranium...the DU that will continue to build up will be there much longer even if they do decide to leave



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by invisibleplane


ok but how about..more troops+longer stay=more depleted uranium...the DU that will continue to build up will be there much longer even if they do decide to leave


I dont see South Korea glowing...do you? After about 50 years of presence.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   
After building the worlds largest Embassy, which is almost like a small city, it should have been pretty obvious that we were going to be there for the long term. I would think if they are going to spend over 9Billion on that alone, we are there for good.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by invisibleplane


ok but how about..more troops+longer stay=more depleted uranium...the DU that will continue to build up will be there much longer even if they do decide to leave


I dont see South Korea glowing...do you? After about 50 years of presence.


I don't get what you're tryin to say...what about the innocent children born who have to face the horrid birth defects due to DU..the pictures aren't pretty to look at but they are out there...

[edit on 12-6-2006 by invisibleplane]



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Assuming the Iraqi government dosnt fall like a stack of cards once local security forces to over the fight against the insurgents US forces will still be needed in the countrie to deter the likes of Iran from using any old excuse to invade the countrie. In the short - medium time span there wont be any conventnal invasion of Iraq. Iran and Syria will continue to fight Iraq indirectly by aiding the insurgents.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by invisibleplane

I don't get what you're tryin to say...what about the innocent children born who have to face the horrid birth defects due to DU..the pictures aren't pretty to look at but they are out there...



There is no conclusive proof that DU had anything to do with birth defects. However its been reported from the gas attacks in Halabja is similar where the survivors have reported miscarriages and deformities. Its possbile that many of the troops from the Gulf War were exposed to traces of chemical weapons from the destruction of the facilities during the 91 bombings where the troops went deep into Iraq. Remember that much of the fighting was in Kuwait as well, which would mean lots of birth defects related to DU in Kuwait. I used South Korea as example where American forces would practice wargames using DU for decades and they come home healthy even though much of their equipment uses DU, from Abrams tanks, to Bradleys to Apaches to A-10 tank killers. I have seen many pictures of the supposed linked to DU the led to their deformities and miscarriages and quite frankly it does not tell me where or when.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   
This comes as absolutely no surprise to those familiar with history. The United States has established it's undeniable presence in Iraq and the world will soon come to realize that ain't changing for a long, long, time


Congrat's to all the military personell from each allied country who have fought to give the Iraqi's a chance at freedom.

Libs flame on



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Iraq. Maybe the oldest country in the world. 166,000 square miles. Larger than California but smaller than Texas. 27 million people. GDP $95 Billion. Per person, $3,400. 575,000 cell phones. 40,000 internet users. Armed forces, 120,000. Future? Very difficult.

South Korea has 38,000 square miles, about the size of Indiana. It has 48 million people. Its GDP is $1 T. Which is about $21,000 per person. SK has 10 overseas fiber optic cables. It has 36 million cell phones. 34 million people are on the internet. SK has a volunteer armed forces of 200,000 men and women. The last time I saw any numbers, the US Army had 38,000 men on permanent duty in South Korea. While once consider harsh duty, SK duty is now a sought after posting.

North Korea has 45,900 square miles, slightly smaller than Mississippi. Its population is 23 million. Its GDP is $40 Billion. Which is about $1,700 per person. NK has no cell phones. It is not on the internet. North Korean armed forces are not given in the CIA Fact book, but there are 5 million men and 5 million women of service age on which to draw. I have read elsewhere the NK Army is about 500,000.

History
In June, 1950, the North Korean Army invaded South Korea. The US was caught by surprise. Within hours, Pres. Truman decided it was not in the US interest to allow this aggression to succeed. The USSR was boycotting the UN at that time which allowed the Security Council to pass several US introduced resolutions condemning the North Koran's aggression and authorizing other United Nations members to join a US led combined command to repel the invading forces. Had the USSR been present at the UN, it would likely have vetoed the UN action, which leads most observers to think the North Koreans acted on their own despite almost total dependence on the Soviet Union. Scrappy fellows! We ought not overlook that.

By November, 1950, Gen of the Army MacArthur had planned and successfully executed the difficult Inchon Landing and had pushed the North Koran Army back from the Pusan Perimeter to the Yalu River, Korea’s boundary with China. The new Chinese government under Mao Zedong warned the UN not to come closer to the border than 20 miles. Critics of MacArthur say he wanted to defeat the Chinese Communists which our ally, Chiang Kai-chek could not do. He was also accused of wanting to use the atomic bomb, which he regarded as just one more weapon in the arsenal of war. He was greatly conflicted with the president over this and took his views public, at which time Pres. Truman fired him.

The Chinese entered the war on behalf of North Korea with an estimated 500,000 men. To avoid a clash with the UN or the US, the soldiers were said to have been “volunteers.” Not the PLA. The Chinese government said it could not “restrain” them. Our forces were ill prepared for this counter offensive. That was a failure of tactical intelligence, not strategic Intel. Mac’s fault, in other words. Our supply lines were stretched to non-existing. The Chinese pushed the UN back to the present de-militarized zone, DMZ, where the boundary remains. A truce was signed in July, 1953. Most of our casualties occurred after the November-December 1950 debacle largely attributable to MacArthur.



[edit on 6/13/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Freedom isn't free sadly.

It's call the spoils of war, and unlike the movies, no young jedi will defeat this empire.

I just wish they gave out those cool storm trooper outfits.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by invisibleplane
ok but how about..more troops+longer stay=more depleted uranium...the DU that will continue to build up will be there much longer even if they do decide to leave

DU is the least of the worries of the peopel of Iraq. Its only dangerous when inhaled at high levels, and those high levels only exist at sites that have been hit by DU tank rounds, and even then only for a short while.


, no young jedi will defeat this empire.

The Empire of Hussein has already been defeated, and the imperium of the 'soon to come' caliphate is being fought tooth and nail right now by forces from the western republics.

See, spin works either way.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
Congrat's to all the military personell from each allied country who have fought to give the Iraqi's a chance at freedom.



You said it.

Freedom from that horrible thing called life...



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Of course the US will have a long term pressence in Iraq. The US is still in the Balkans, and that started years ago.

According to this map of worldwide US troop deployments (2005) from CNN, there were 1,500 in Kosovo and 200 in Bosnia, at the time.

I imagine the US will be in Iraq for a long time yet to come, but for what reason?

We must remember that we initially went to war under the pretext of WMD. Am I now being asked to accept that the coalition initiated a conflict, based upon what now appears to be suspect information, that has evolved into the frontline in the war on terror/radical Islamification?

National Interest must be the major driving force behind strategic planning. I believe the US is acting in the perceived National Interest through it's actions in Iraq and not out of some latent malevolant characteristic, as some would have me believe. This is not to say that I agree with a heck of a lot of what is happening in Iraq mind!

Nygdan -

To me, the idea of fighting radical Islam/terror on the battlefield in a single concentrated area does not seem to make much sense, particularly when you take into account that the coalition have also removed the only secular strongman in the region. It seems unlikely to me that the US would wage a war against such a foe in such a manner.

So what is the National Interest in this case?

I'll take a stab at the obvious...oil. We are hearing more and more in the news regarding future energy crises. Not so long ago parts of Europe were almost 'held to ransom' over gas supplies. Nations needs energy to function.

The costs incurred by the war, at the taxpayer's expense I might add, have been enormous. The troop deployment is sizeable, to say the least. Is there something around the corner that we are not being informed of? Are our oil supplies secure?


Of course, it could be just as the 'news' says it is...or maybe it's the aliens!



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   
The U. S. has established a beachhead in the Middle East....literally. The current U. S. Embassy currently under construction and its grounds will cover 106 Acres. We don't build something like this and walk away in ten years. We are there for good.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 09:38 PM
link   


posted by KhieuSamphan

I imagine the US will be in Iraq a long time, but for what reason? We went to war under the pretext of WMDs. I am now being asked to accept that has evolved into the front line war on terrorism in the form of radical Islam. [Edited by Don W]


Misrepresenting the truth is coming home to roost. If Geo W had told the truth then his credibility would not be in the basement. OTOH, if he had told the truth, there would not have been an Iraq War.



National Interest must be the major driving force behind strategic planning. I believe the US is acting in its perceived national Interest. So what is the national Interest in this case? I'll take a stab at the obvious . . oil. We hear more in the news regarding future energy crises. Not long ago parts of Europe were 'held to ransom' over gas supplies. Nations need energy to function.


Two issues. First, yes, we know there will be an energy crisis of unimaginable proportions. When? We don’t know, but it won’t be as long to get to “peak” as it has been. When we pass “peak” demand will exceed supply every day. A free market will rocket out of control. Price fixing will be required. To avoid a prolonged struggle over pricing, I’d propose a bifurcated price. Everyone would get a bar coded card for 50 gallons a month at prices set by the government, based on income and need. The pump price for over 50 gallons a month purchases would be the “sky is the limit!” Only God and Exxon would set the price. Hallelujah!

Second issue. By 1922, the division of the Ottoman Empire had created Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, the Gulf emanates and Yemen. In each case the West (France and Great Britain) created a monarchy and by force of arms set them on their respective thrones.

All the newly crowned kings understood their continued survival required full cooperation with France and Great Britain. Those tyrannical autocrats began to extract wealth from the people they were imposed on to rule. The struggle to be free of remote and unconcerned monarchs hand picked by of France and Great Britain - both replaced by the US after War 2 as both France and Great Britain were broke - is the major underlying factor in this so-called war on radical Islam. Radical Islam is a direct product of the repressive regimes we have imposed and kept in power.



The costs incurred by the war have been enormous. The troop deployment is sizeable . . Are our oil supplies secure?


Not at all. We are “monkeying” around with old Persia now Iran and we seem oblivious to the fact Iran itself exports about 2.5 million barrels per day, the prolonged loss of which would have disastrous effects on the price of oil. Should the US be so stupid as to bomb or strafe Iran, they could close the Gulf for at least a few days, which would spike oil to $100 +. Say thank you Geo W and Herr Oberfuhrer.



posted by nightbreid
The U. S. has established a beachhead in the Middle East. The U. S. Embassy currently under construction and its grounds will cover 106 Acres. We don't build something like this and walk away in ten years. We are there for good. [Edited by Don W]


Well, unless it is sold for a DisneyWorld East.



[edit on 6/13/2006 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join