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.

 

20,000 Additional Troops to Surge into Iraq

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The truth is Congress could do a lot to prevent these troops from going. They could refuse to fund it -- but they won't because of their chicken # nature. It wouldn't be politically prudent for them to be seen as 'not supporting the troops' and George knows that. He's counting on that. If Congress would stand up and exercise their power, they could do quite a bit to change things around. They are 2 parts of this government but they haven't the huevos to do the right thing because they might be seen as unsupportive.

I'd be proud to be seen as unsupportive of the insanity that is currently taking place.

And for those of you who support this action, I hope you're going down to sign up today at your local recruiting office. Your country needs you. Whether you've already served or never served, if you support sending more troops to their bloody, senseless deaths, put your money where your mouth is and give a soldier a break.

If you've "done your time", then do it again. This isn't a punishment for crime. You don't back down because you already did your job. How dare you support sending more troops and then back out, claiming you already served. :shk:



You have voted Benevolent Heretic for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


All real good points, imo, BH, so back at ya.


I don't know where the Reps are getting this "seen as unsupported" rhetoric. Out of their behinds, maybe. The Bush policy on Iraq IS ALREADY UNSUPPORTED by the people. So why in the hell would the American people hold that against the Dems in the next election, when it is this very course that the people wish the administration to pursue? Desperation, I tell ya. Desperation.

What the majority of the people want is a reversal of this policy. Just like in Vietnam, while at first it appeared to be the right thing to do, when it became apparent that it was the wrong thing to do, the administration lost the support of its people. Ultimately it has been shown over and over that without a strong foundation, any building is going to collapse. And even so Bush continues to hold on to the flagpole at the top despite the fact that the building is coming down. So fine then. It's going to be a long, hard fall from which he will not recover.

marg, I'm going to have to disagree that so far Bush's objectives have been achieved. The lesser of the two evils was clearly to leave Hussein in power, and try to find other ways to slowly subvert his rule. Don't we have a CIA quite adept at doing just that? Instead now we have a country in civil war, untold thousands dead, the entire middle east just about pissed as hell at us, and further impetus for moderate Islamists to turn extremist. Not to mention countries like Iran pursuing nuclear aspirations, and thus causing a lot of other countries in the region to want the same. Way to go, Mr. Bush.

Also marg, that has really got to hurt about your husband not receiving the certificate. I am very sorry to hear that, although that has been going on for some time. I remember stories about that here on ATS, that the military was essentially changing signed contracts and either extending them or redeploying troops that had served their time- and fullfilled their contract.

And that brings up another point. It is just, and proper, that there be a limited deployment time for volunteer troops. And this case in Iraq is a prime example. The forcing of rotation of troops keeps the public opinion in the loop at all times, indirectly. Because if public support reverses at any time during a war, clearly there will be a drop in new enlistments, and hence a drop in the available forces to deploy. By changing this and renigging on contracts, the Bush administration, AGAIN, bypasses a just system of checks and balances. G, where we seen this before? Patriot Act, anyone?




posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Bush has been holding to finish the goal of the private interest in Iraq. He did what he was put in power to do, invaded Iraq, take the regime (this one to benefit Israel also) then to achieve that Iraq will become a Mecca to private interest, this one is the reason he needs more troops and more money to give away for the explotaition of Iraq resources and to ensure the security of the reconstruction that have failed due to the resistance in that country.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Funny, last year we were at the same amount of troops we WILL BE when these 21,000 get to Iraq. What can they do now that they couldnt do BEFORE?

Surge, Escalation. Its funny how the English language has words to implicate less harm than the other, but both are the same.


This is another joint effort between Republicans and Democrats to have a draft. I'll give you my sons as soon as our president gives up HIS GIRLS.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Hey deeg!


Very good point about the number of troops. Nobody is mentioning how we have already tried having 150,000 troops there and it was a failure then, too!



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   
It boils down to this... Iraq is a bloody and bleeding mess. It is a mess for the Iraqi's and it is a mess for the region and it is a mess for us.

The odds are that the situition is so far gone that it is simply going to have to play itself out and that there is nothing we can do to stop it. We stay its bad, we leave its bad. Those are the real options.

And the pisser about it and the one every one minces around is that it is our own damned fault. We caused it. We allowed ourselves to be buffaloed into an unprovoked and unneccesary war by a small man (bush) who had a hair across his ass about another small man(saddam)... and he (bush) used a national tragedy (9/11) to pull the wool over our eyes.

Was there any question bush would actually embrace any realistic proposals about what to do there? No there wasn't, he has too much of a vested interest in continuing.

And Rice does this country no good parroting his views she is the most ineffectual sec. of state in at least my life time.

Rumsfeld is out of office now. He should pay for his incompetance.

[edit on 11-1-2007 by grover]



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Very good point about the number of troops. Nobody is mentioning how we have already tried having 150,000 troops there and it was a failure then, too!

150,00 was never enough to begin with. It should have been 250,000, esp. when we dismantled their army and now have to rebuild it to do the security jobs they could have been doing all along. I put the blame directly on Rumsfeld for those bad decisions.

And do not discount the fact that we have been waging a PC war all along. We've been asked to restrain ourselves while the other side has has a blank check to commit terrorism at will. They run into the mosque, and we can't chase them.

Forget your own feelings about the horrors of war. You cannot shackle a man and then expect him to run after the enemy.

That's where the second part comes in: no more restrictions on fighting. No more hiding in, and shooting from, a mosque. No more "home free" pass for them when they run into the Sadr City limits.

As Bush said, the American people do not have unlimited patience. He threw out the date of November.


Originally posted by BH
And for those of you who support this action, I hope you're going down to sign up today at your local recruiting office. Your country needs you. Whether you've already served or never served, if you support sending more troops to their bloody, senseless deaths, put your money where your mouth is and give a soldier a break.

If you've "done your time", then do it again. This isn't a punishment for crime. You don't back down because you already did your job. How dare you support sending more troops and then back out, claiming you already served.

Pretty crappy, BH, coming from you. Nobody wants to see our soldiers hurt or killed. To imply that someone that agrees with this action translates into some kind of glee over their "bloody, senseless death" is morbid. Nobody calls you out because you never served; don't trash those who have already served all Americans, whether you agree with their mission or not. They did not selectively decide which Americans they serve; they serve all of us. How dare you trash talk them?

Every American I know, if given the choice, would love to have the troops back home, or at least out of harms way. The difference is, not everyone understands that leaving Iraq tomorrow is not the answer.

There is a big difference between protesting the administration and protesting the troops.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Forget your own feelings about the horrors of war.


While I do have feelings about the horrors of war, don't forget that I supported this war when I thought the Pres. was telling us the truth about WMDs. It was only when I learned that we had been lied to that I withdrew my support for this war. I don't object to all war. Just the ones that are based on lies and cannot be 'won'. We need a different tactic, not the same thing under a different name.



To imply that someone that agrees with this action translates into some kind of glee over their "bloody, senseless death" is morbid.


I did not even come close to implying that.



Nobody calls you out because you never served;


But I'm not standing in the cheering section, either. And let them call me out. I'm not afraid of confrontation. I just don't understand how someone can stand back and support sending more troops into a death zone without volunteering themselves. If people think this war is necessary and they agree with it, what's wrong with asking that they put their money where their mouth is? What's wrong with asking Congress and the administration to send their own children to die for their country?

It's easy to sit back and root for this bloody mess like it's some sort of team sport, I'm just asking that they get real and get out on the field if they want to support the effort.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Interesting change of heart...

Bush said, in April of 2005:



Bush Explains Troop Levels

"Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave."


Also, we have had as many as 160,000 troops in Iraq. What's "new" about having 150,000 there now? Doesn't a surge imply a temporary spike? When can these 21,000 come home?

This is the FIFTH escalation of troops in Iraq. What's new about this?

This surge is just a smokescreen for starting a war with Iran and/or Syria. Is that ok with you, the defenders of this "New Way Forward"??



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
There are words I could use to describe what I exactly feel about bush minor and his splendid little war, but using them would get me banned from here permanently. So, I will instead use the words I can.

FOOL! LIAR! Sanctimonious hypocrite. Arrogant. Blinder than a bat. Self deluded. Deaf. Stubborn. Bull headed. Moron. Jackass. Self Righteous egotist. SOB. Idiot.

If his father had any sense of common decency he would bitch slap that pinhead from here to eternity in front of the entire nation.

How many of our good men and women in uniform have to be maimed or die before congress does what obviously has to be done which is to take down this entire corrupt administration and lock their sorry asses up in gitmo?

I was up at my local VA hospital for a regular checkup today and I talked to quite a few vets and staff up there. I heard a lot of honest and sincere support for our troops, bless their hearts, a lot of well wishing and in the entire 3 hours up there did I hear a single word of support for bush....the average comment about him was contemptous and filled with disgust.

And still there are those who support him and try and bring up how "bad" Clinton was and how he lied.

Ain't no comparison.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   


This surge is just a smokescreen for starting a war with Iran and/or Syria. Is that ok with you, the defenders of this "New Way Forward"??


I would have to agree with that.

However, what is bothering me is this use of the word surge for the additional troops. Is it some sort of covert mind control? If you look up the dictionary definition of surge it does not seem appropriate for the increase in troops. Its very strange imo.


surge /sɜrdʒ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[surj] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, surged, surg·ing.



1. a strong, wavelike, forward movement, rush, or sweep: the onward surge of an angry mob.


2. a strong, swelling, wavelike volume or body of something: a billowing surge of smoke.


3. the rolling swell of the sea.


4. the swelling and rolling sea: The surge crashed against the rocky coast.


5. a swelling wave; billow.


6. a widespread change in atmospheric pressure that is in addition to cyclonic and normal diurnal changes.


dictionary.reference.com...



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Yes, etshrtslr. Surge implies a strong hit AND that it's temporary. I don't buy that this president has any intention of this 'surge' being temporary. And if it's supposed to be a strong hit with a lot of impact, why are they 'trickling' them in and sending them to different locations?

This is not a surge any more that this war is the "action against violent extremism' or whatever they wordsmiths tried earlier. This is an escalation of troops to fight the upcoming war. This is Vietnam revisited. Anyone who doesn't see that is blind or blind.

[edit on 12-1-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Perhaps its just a mindgame to get the Iraqi government to take off the kidgloves and take back their country from the troublemakers?

The Iraqi's dont want more troops, they want to be self sufficient.
Congress will try to block the deployments.

The bush league knows this.
Strong words, and a good poker face can sometimes be a very effective force on doncha know.

Send in the 82nd, and announce a huge new deployment. That'll mess with their heads. Get the Iraqis motivated to keep control of their own country, and catch the Iranians off guard, and send them into a mistake making panic, since they were expecting the whole thing to fall apart after the elections.

It seems to be working. Stratfor (subscription) has an article that reports of a "surge" has caught the IRI off-guard. They were gearing down expecting retreat from the U.S. Also, Iraq just put 20,000 of their military on the streets cleaning things up with a mandate of, "arrest anyone with a weapon. Shoot those who resist".



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   
People don't get it, the whole Iranian affair is just bush getting ready to do another blunder attacking that country.

Wake up the Iranian affair is another lie, more propaganda in Bushes war on terror to make it stick because his lines are getting old.

The only people fighting in Iraq right now Are Shiite Iraqi militias that are all part of the government in the government of Iraq and most of the police and military are all part of it, and Sunnis trying to stay alive.

Bush is fooling everybody and creating a non existent Iranian affair.

While all the attention is concentrating in Iran and Baghdad, the small twons are creating their own militias to stay alive.

The mess in Iraq is worst that Bushes wants the people to know.

A surge of troops are only to become targets in the struggles of these Iraqi groups.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   
What is so different this time? Prior to this, there was no cohesive, trained Iraqi force to pick up the slack.

The Americans would win district a of Baghdad, and then move on to district b. Not enough troops to stay behind and hold district a, so back came the terrorists. It was like chasing your tail.

Now the Iraqis have trained troops and police. But their gov't has not been serious enough about assuming their responsibility. This is as much an ultimatum to them as it is an attack against the insurgents.

Maliki has publicly adddressed al-Sadr and his Mehdi army twice in the past two days, demanding they disarm. Talk is cheap, but maybe he has found religion by this point, and realized his own mortality. He can rest assured that this is his final chance; after this, he is on his own.

That's how I read it.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Maliki has publicly adddressed al-Sadr and his Mehdi army twice in the past two days, demanding they disarm. Talk is cheap, but maybe he has found religion by this point, and realized his own mortality. He can rest assured that this is his final chance; after this, he is on his own.

That's how I read it.


Maliki can not take Sadr, and killing Sadr is just going to bring another martyr.

The Iraqis are not going to disarm because that will put them and their families in the harms way.

Bush wants to blame Iran, Syria, Al-qaida and Hamas and whatever he wants, but the truth is that Iraqis are fighting each other, taking arms from one groups will make one stronger than the other.

The problem is the government itself, when US took the Sunnis out of power, the Shiites has divided into to groups that opposed each other within their own government and their own society.

In order for one groups to disarm the government will have to disarm itself or the killings will not stop.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
People don't get it, the whole Iranian affair is just bush getting ready to do another blunder attacking that country.

Wake up the Iranian affair is another lie, more propaganda in Bushes war on terror to make it stick because his lines are getting old.

The only people fighting in Iraq right now Are Shiite Iraqi militias that are all part of the government in the government of Iraq and most of the police and military are all part of it, and Sunnis trying to stay alive.

Bush is fooling everybody and creating a non existent Iranian affair.

While all the attention is concentrating in Iran and Baghdad, the small twons are creating their own militias to stay alive.

The mess in Iraq is worst that Bushes wants the people to know.

A surge of troops are only to become targets in the struggles of these Iraqi groups.


You are misinformed about Iranians lack of mischief, support, and even participation in events in Iraq.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by jsobecky





Bush wants to blame Iran, Syria, Al-qaida and Hamas and whatever he wants, but the truth is that Iraqis are fighting each other, taking arms from one groups will make one stronger than the other.
.




While it's true that the Iraqi's are fighting each other, I dont think for one moment that Iran is innocently standing on the sidelines doing nothing I'm quite sure they have funneled weapons and explosives for the IED's that have plagued our military.

And Iran is taking full advantage of the fact that we dont have the stomach for an all out war with them, so they keep pouring the support to the insurgents knowing that we will eventually turn tail and run.

I think if we left Iraq tomorrow Iran would completly take over iraq or at least try.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
You are misinformed about Iranians lack of mischief, support, and even participation in events in Iraq.


Oh, is not doubt in my mind that the Shiite rule government in Iraq wants to get involved with its fellows Shiites from Iran.

Remember the government of Iraq is divided into two groups, the followers of sadr militias and the ones that wants US capitalism.


But remember you are giving to much credit to our presidents indentions against Iran.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Iranian $$$, ammo/explosives, training of militants, intel agents, other assorted personel involved in less than humanitarian purposes.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
Iranian $$$, ammo/explosives, training of militants, intel agents, other assorted personel involved in less than humanitarian purposes.


Hey nothing that our own government has not done before to other countries.

Iran contra, Al-qaida support, Venezuela coup and the support of rather less than nice for he people governments.

Saddam regime before he was the enemy, our political leaders has done it and more.

How dare any of those evil countries in world do what US knows best. Right



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join