It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
20,000 troops in my mind, just means 20,000 more targets, 20,000 more worried and possibly grieving families.
how long is this 20,000 troop addition going to be considered the 'next step' until it becomes apparent that it achieved nothing?
What will we do then ? we cant possibly send in MORE troops....
Whats the ultimate goal with 20,000 troops?
to kill all the insurgents?
George, there's NO LOGIC BEHIND WHAT YOUR DOING.
Originally posted by Maverick44
TO start with I am not here to say that he came up with the answer or that he did not . I don"t no if anyone can , But there is some things that even I can think of , Our young men are being killed every day . we take A target . clean it out go on to a new target only for them to come back in and regroup .HOW does that help us .It will not end the war . Why cant they put some of the trained Iraqy soliders take command of it and and keep it ? they dont do any thing else . All of them have a part they can do for there own future .Our Men need there help . When our men dont have PRES .Bush behind them they will be lost . with the Demarats we all no they are all cowards.Pres. BUSH IS THE BEST WE HAVE . AND THEY ALL NO IT . I am sorry about my bad spelling .
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I am yet to see the speach, but interesting some say it was pre-recorded.
thats a bit unusual isnt it?
more troops arent going to acomplish anything in my mind.
What can you do with 160,000 troops, that you couldnt do with 140,000?
And thats not even counting the help the ALLIES have in this coalition.
I think this clearly shows that the IRAQI police/army we are creating, Isnt going to work.
Originally posted by jsobecky
Originally posted by QuasiShaman
The war mongering chimp is aiming towards a 3 front war with Iraq, Iran and Syria now. Thats what I took from the last 2/3 I heard. IE WWIII
Also, he is so incompetent he cannot even give a live speech. I wonder how many takes and reedits he needed to get this right!?
Yes, you're right. It's a much better idea to allow Iran to continue to train, fund, and supply the insurgency in Iraq.
And you're also right about the fact that the speech being pre-recorded was somehow a bad thing. It's so much better to be live because....what was that reason again?
Originally posted by darkbluesky
Agit, As you and I have discussed before, what about the 10's of 1,000's of innocent sunnis that will be slaughtered if coalition forces pack up and leave?
To kill enough of them so that the Iraqi army can handle the rest. Also possibly to weed out the sh#t from the Iraqi Army.
The new thing I heard that no one else is talking about is Bush's challenge to the Iraqi parliment to allow former bathists back into the political forum. This alone could quell alot of the violence.
What is your logical solution to this mess AgitatedChop?
Originally posted by PrepareForTheWorst
I see a lot of people here bashing the war saying what a terrible job Bush is doing...what I rarely see is what would YOU do if you were in control? Would you have us pull out or stay? Maybe something completely different that we have not heard of yet? I am curious as to what you think should be done.
Hope this post finds everyone in good spirits and health.
Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve. It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom. Yet times of testing reveal the character of a Nation. And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.
Originally posted by Soitenly
The country has been nearly eviscerated in two wars and years of oil sanctions. The infrastructure in Iraq is not on par to accomodate for mass troop withdraws. If the war in Iraq is to be had and over with, we must send more troops and send a message to these terrorist that we are not playing games with them.
Stability and sustainablity are key to keeping the heavy hand of the Iranians, Russians, French and British from taking control. The great game never ended and so to must America make a bold stand and take risk which can only secure the vital resources for this controls growth and sustainablity.
Originally posted by XPhiles
It looked pre-recorded, definitely not live and he was reading cue cards.... pathetic... The speech opposes the American people..
Last Updated: Thursday, 11 January 2007, 08:17 GMT
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Reaction to Bush's new Iraq strategy
International reaction to the announcement by US President George Bush that the US is preparing to send more troops in Iraq.
UK FOREIGN SECRETARY MARGARET BECKETT
The announcement that President Bush has made and the agreement and backup from the Iraqi government and Prime Minister Maliki shows that both are determined to try to come to grips with what is unquestionably a difficult situation in, particularly in Baghdad. We welcome that and we hope that the joint effort to resolve this very difficult security situation which is undermining efforts to put other things right in Iraq will indeed succeed.
AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER JOHN HOWARD
The government supports the new approach outlined by President Bush. It was a very clear, calm and, above all, a realistic speech, but he didn't underestimate the challenge, he admitted some mistakes have been made and made it very clear what is at stake. An American or Western defeat in Iraq would give an unbelievable boost to terrorism.
JAPANESE FOREIGN MINISTER TARO ASO
The Japanese government praises this announcement as additional efforts by the US government to stabilise Iraq.
GEORGE JABOOR, SYRIAN MP
The American president is following a plan which has already failed. Why is he following through a failed plan? It's a plan of confrontation, challenge, accusations against this or that party that is against his Iraq policy. He is doing this in fact because he knows he has failed. As the president of the world's most powerful country, he feels he cannot admit failure. What is needed is for Bush to be humble and see the reality on the ground.
US SENATOR DICK DURBIN, DEMOCRAT
The president's response to the challenge of Iraq is to send more American soldiers into the crossfire of the civil war that has engulfed that nation. Escalation of this war is not the change the American people called for in the last election. Instead of a new direction, the president's plan moves the American commitment in Iraq in the wrong direction.
20,000 American soldiers are too few to end this civil war in Iraq and too many American lives to risk on top of those we've already lost. It's time for President Bush to face the reality of Iraq. And the reality is this: America has paid a heavy price. We have paid with the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. And we've paid with the hard-earned tax dollars of the families of America.
JAMES CARAFANO OF THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION AND ONE OF THE MILITARY ADVISERS TO THE IRAQ STUDY GROUP
People say 20,000 troops aren't enough to secure Baghdad, that is absolutely true; on the other hand what I heard articulated was that 20,000 troops that are really being used to bolster the Iraqis and hopefully are going to free up a lot more troops to embed with the Iraqi forces and work on training and reforming the police force - that's a good thing; will it work? One of the weaknesses in the president's speech is there really wasn't much discussed of risk; this is a very risky strategy because it is really predicated on not what the US troops, but what on the Iraqis do.