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.
Originally posted by magicmushroom
The US military is stretched at the moment, its available Army manpower is about 850k which sounds a lot but not when you look at US commitments Worldwide. Also its a big mistake to include the total numbers of the armed foces as the greater percentage will not be fighting on the ground.
Originally posted by BlueRaja
I disagree with the assertion that we went to Iraq, to make money. Nobody in their right mind goes to war to get rich(at a national level, perhaps you could say a Mercenary fights for money). Do you honestly believe that the government wouldn't have preferred the last 6yrs to be peaceful, and have an easy time in office, rather than the crap they've had to deal with day in and day out. Where's the cheap oil? Halliburton didn't start the war. I've been in Iraq, so I am somewhat qualified to speak based on personal experience- most Iraqis just want stability and while they may not be crazy about us being there, they're even less crazy about us leaving in a hurry, and everything going down the crapper. The percentage fighting us because they lost a relative is a pittance compared to the other reasons I've mentioned.
Originally posted by magicmushroom
Yes the US has large Army reserves but these are hardly combat proven or ready and if the professionals (ahem) cannot complete the job its doubtful reserves will.
Also the US Goverment is concerned of losses, not that its cares about its personnel, more the fact that it does not want to loose power.
Either way America is up # creek without a paddle, it looses either way.
my sympathy lies with the grunts and the innocents who have and continue to make the supreme sacrifice, we forget them so easily.
We should be marchin a 3 or 4 million man army easy
Originally posted by Nygdan
We should be marchin a 3 or 4 million man army easy
We have around a million people in the military. COmpare that, oddly enough, to north korea, which ALSO has 1 million people in its army. They are in the top 5 'larget militaries in the world'. And thats with a population of 22 million. If we had a million men in the army for every 20 million, meaning we had the same fanatical militarism that the NKs have, we'd have something like 15 million people in our military.
[edit on 12-12-2006 by Nygdan]
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I believe that a % of the attacks are from outside influences.
but ultimately, it is the iraqis who are being bombed, shot, and drive out of their homes.
[We do not waste bombs on civillians.
We do not fire on civillians. (With orders, there have been court- marshals, and executions ofr individual soldiers doing this.)
Driven out of their homes is due to sectarian violence and threats.]
Its Iraqi's being locked up and interrogated by US Forces.
[Generally, with just-cause.]
Even so,
Anyone who takes a shot at US Forces is deemed a 'terrorist' under current government standards.
[Yes. If you fire a bullet at an enemy soldier, you're going to be killed. This is true for any nation, in all the world.]
If your family was murdered in a bomb strike...
you had nothin left, but a war torn country where death was saturating..
wouldnt you pick up a gun, and take a shot at the occupiers that caused so much suffering?
[Again, we don't waste bombs on civillians. Yes, there have been accidents. Preferably, I'd try to rise above it, aid my country, and stop the cycle of death which is destroying myself, my country-men, and my religiou sect that I care so much about.]
The US is ensuring the war on terrorism GROWS, every minute we are in Iraq.
[We're ensuring nothing. However, because we are there, every dissident country which has the slightest issue with us is pouring forces, and arms into the region. We're in one of the most volatile areas of the world, and we're hated. Of course it's growing.]
But its passed the equilibruim,
If we stay, terorrism increases.
If we leave, terrorism increases.
This war being lost has nothing to do with the public losing stomach wanting to follow it,
its lost because the reasoning, the rational and the goals of this conflict were illegitimate and illegial.
[These do not affect the outcome of wars. Do not romanticize a bull# concept.]
We went into this war to make money, not to better humanity.
[No, we didn't. Halliburton conspiracies, even if true, do not cover the entire war. Put some facts into your posts, some evidence, I ask.]
And that is the reason this war will never be won.
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I dont like giving out statements and lines im going to use in a soon to be posted thread..
but on sept12, when heads of state were meeting discussing what action to take...
GW bush walked up and asked them to FIND A link between Saddam and 911.
The CIA man turned and said '' but alqaeda did this, it was alqaeda ''
bush snapped back
'' I know, I know ''
If this was a surprise attack,
How was the PRESIDENT CERTAIN, the next day of who did it...
enough so he was activley looking for links BETWEEN the culpirates and another party?
He OBVIOUSLY NEW alqaeda was responsible before the events happened.
How are you aware of who is ABOUT TO ATTACK YOU,
but NOT AWARE an attack is coming?
Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I am not sure how many soldiers the U.S has...I doubt that it's over 2 million...However, considering that we are spread all over the war in places like France,Germany and others, it is no wonder that we don't have enough to go into Iraq..
One of the problems that I see with the current conflict and the reason why the "war on terrorism" is not winnable is because the American public is not patient enough.. I don't necessarily think that we should be in Iraq; however, I am referring more to how long the "war on terrorism" would last any way.. Americans do not have the tenacity to support a prolonged war.
Vietnam ruined this country when it comes to conflict.
Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Agit, you seem to be implying that it is actually Iraqis we are fighting over there.. I don't think that that has even a remote semblance of truth to it. I don't.. If you look at what is going on, the vast majority of the insurgency is entering via Iran and Syria
The borders, much like here in the U.S, are not secure in Iraq.
Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well, from what I see, it wasn't the war planning that is the problem in Iraq.
The problem is that we had no plan for afterwards.
I mean, hell, it looks to me as if the current administration thought that after Saddam was put away, everything would be hunky dory over there.
Well, it's not and the present administration doesn't seem to know what to do about it.
Considering the history of that whole region, the Middle East, it was rather naive to think that everything would be peaceful after Saddam's fall. What on God's green earth ever gave anyone the inclination that it would be?
Now we have, what, 150,000 troops over there? It is not nearly enough. Before we even invaded Iraq, experts were declaring that we would need at least 400,000 to secure Iraq.. We never had that many over there. We may have had to 250 thousand at the climax, but never upwards toward 400,000.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Indeed, war is bad for business. The capitalist class will have to favour relatively peaceable sitautions, not terribly war-filled ones.
Also, as far as politics, the iraq war has destroyed the republican rule of the us government.
For over a decade they had control of congress, and for 8 years they had the white house too. And that gave them the supreme court. Now they've pretty much lost it all, and disgracefully.
If the republicans had planned the iraq war to keep themselves in power, and their monied backers rich, then they'd've gone into iraq with the largest army possible, and used the most brutal and represseive tactics possible, in order to have security and success.
As it is, they blundered into it and blundered throughout it, and have been booted out because of it.
Hell, if we 'follow the success and who benefits', then we'd have to suspect the democrats of having engineered the iraq war.
Hmm, they DID universally back the war itself, and then quickly get on the 'anti-war' bandwagon, perhaps they DID plan it all, eh?
If a state is about to conquer your state, then any 'theory' of war is meaningless, you have to respond just to survive.
BUt hussein didn't try to expand into the US. Indeed, hussein wasn't, per the neoconservative rational, really a threat to the US at all.
It was that the middle east needed to be reorganized along democratic lines, that this was necessary to stop terrorism, that was the rationale for removing dictators.
Hussein was supposed to be the start of all that. As it is, looks like he was the end of all that.
Originally posted by Nygdan
THere are 25 active combat brigades from the regular army that can be sent out of the US and into Iraq. That's without even changing the ones in korea and the like.
We can send less than half of that, and still double the troop pressence in Iraq, and thats with regular army troops, not reserves, who are doing a fine job of it anyway
US losses in iraq are about 1/80th of US losses per day in Vietnam. Clearly, there's not a concern about weakening the army through deaths and other casualties.
You do realize that its the whole of the West that has been defeated here, right? No nation, anywhere now, is going to be able to do anything, short of sanctions, to stop jihadists in the middle east.
THey will simply slowly take over the entire region, and then have control of, or at least over, the world's oil supply.
They're going to use it to build nuke weapons, just like iran is, and then they're going to start nuking, or threatening to nuke, western cities.
Its not what the average muslim wants, but its what the fanatics that are killing people en mass in iraq want. There's nothing left in the world to stop them
My sympathy lies with the future victims of this upcomming nuclear holocaust.
We have around a million people in the military. COmpare that, oddly enough, to north korea, which ALSO has 1 million people in its army. They are in the top 5 'larget militaries in the world'. And thats with a population of 22 million. If we had a million men in the army for every 20 million, meaning we had the same fanatical militarism that the NKs have, we'd have something like 15 million people in our military.
Originally posted by StellarX
Considering the history of that whole region, the Middle East, it was rather naive to think that everything would be peaceful after Saddam's fall. What on God's green earth ever gave anyone the inclination that it would be?
What history? Where did you get the idea that they thought it would be peaceful? The military planners apparently knew what would happen and it's clear from their planning documents what they thought would be required to 'win' the peace.
Stellar
Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
What history? Hell, man, they have been fighting in the Middle East for 4000+ years!!
What made the U.S government think that it was going to cease with the fall of one dictator!!??
Where did I get the idea that the U.S government thought it would be peaceful? Well, unless you are going to state that all of this is just an intentional conspiracy to get our GIs murdered over there, I think it's quite obvious that the U.S government didn't count on as much conflict as there has been since the fall of Saddam..