Stop the Insanity:Gates wants 98,000 More

www.news.com.au...#

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said he would recommend to President George W. Bush increasing the Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 troops over the next five years for the long-term fight against terrorism.

“The emphasis will be on increasing combat capability,” Mr Gates said at a White House news conference to detail Mr Bush's plan for changing course in the Iraq war.

They used to give us a couple of weeks after a surge. Can you spell E_S_C_A_L_A_T_I_O_N!

Mod Note: One Line and Short Posts – Please Review This Link.
Mod Edit to apply external quote code, please review this link

[edit on 11-1-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

Sure, but you have trouble reading. The 92,000 troop increase is the amount of troops of the entire size of the army and marine corps that will be increased. This does not mean adding more troops to Iraq. This is just for creating a larger army and marine corps. This way there will be more troops available so they won't be stretched so thin.


[edit on 1/11/07 by pugachev]

A quote from the article:

"US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said he would recommend to President George W. Bush increasing the Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 troops over the next five years for the long-term fight against terrorism."

Pugachev, I think you're having trouble reading. The article says very plainly that he wants to increase troop level by 92,000. That means adding 92,000 to the ones that we already have.

The only way they will be able to do that is through the Draft, which probably isn't too far in the future. Only 11% of Americans advocate sending in more troops. So....when they start the Draft, that's when it will hit the fan. Could be worse than the draft during Vietnam with all the protests.


Mod Edit to apply external quote code, please review this link

[edit on 11-1-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

You're wrong. He said to fight against terrorism because that's what we are war against. He's talking about increasing the over all military size. They were speaking about this same statement earlier on the news.

[edit on 1/11/07 by pugachev]

By the way, this was one of the recommendations by the Iraq Study Group. They said they were against adding more troops to Iraq. Why would they contradict themselves?

For clarity, read straight from the horse's mouth.

www.defenselink.mil...

And you were saying?

The president is totally wrong, 21,500 troops is no good....so....what about 100,000? Would that be good? huh? Is that what's really behind all this??
The Draft???
I think so. The Republicans and Democrats play again. I swear, if we as Americans continue to allow all this, be it from El presidente, or the Democrats we are dead (for lack of a more appropriate word) and totally uncaring and indifferent...we've lost everything we ever had that our fathers and forefathers worked to ensure our protection for for hundreds of years.
In watching the life of Adolph Hitler the other night, i can see not only a similar reaction in Germany's people in the 30's...but a simiilar tyranical leader as we have.
No gas, but plenty of screws.

I got a better Idea, lets move the entire nation of the US into the country of Iraq.

It will be not problem fighting terrorism.

Originally posted by dgtempe
The president is totally wrong, 21,500 troops is no good....so....what about 100,000? Would that be good? huh? Is that what's really behind all this??
The Draft???
I think so. The Republicans and Democrats play again. I swear, if we as Americans continue to allow all this, be it from El presidente, or the Democrats we are dead (for lack of a more appropriate word) and totally uncaring and indifferent...we've lost everything we ever had that our fathers and forefathers worked to ensure our protection for for hundreds of years.
In watching the life of Adolph Hitler the other night, i can see not only a similar reaction in Germany's people in the 30's...but a simiilar tyranical leader as we have.
No gas, but plenty of screws.

Read the article I posted please....

My opinion is based on what i can see at the moment and not based on anyone's article or opinion.


Read the article- So what?
Instead of refering people to it you should post your point of view on the article. And i ask so what?
How do you think they can get so many to enroll voluntarily??

[edit on 11-1-2007 by dgtempe]

I'm aware it's for the long war and to fight terrorism but that certainly indicates that any peace in Iraq or anywhere else on earth is probably a very remote possibility. They are also ratcheting up the rhetoric on Iran and Syria. I fail to see how increasing the size of our military will lead to peace, but then I quess 'War is Peace'

Originally posted by polanksi
I fail to see how increasing the size of our military will lead to peace, but then I quess 'War is Peace'

Since we're both on the same page, maybe there's been miscommunication between us. War will get us nowhere. I totally agree with you. Terrorism and politics, Bush's desire for Armageddon are the focal points here.
Nothing can come out of there to benefit the Iraqis or the Americans, or the middle east...or the world.
Stability in that region is nothing but Bush's wet dream, a dream that will lead us into WWIII or worse.

Gates and the Diversion
Gates consistently testified that he first heard on October 1, 1986, from the national intelligence officer who was closest to the Iran initiative, Charles E. Allen, that proceeds from the Iran arms sales may have been diverted to support the contras.2 Other evidence proves, however, that Gates received a report on the diversion during the summer of 1986 from DDI Richard Kerr. The issue was whether Independent Counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gates was deliberately not telling the truth when he later claimed not to have remembered any reference to the diversion before meeting with Allen in October.

www.fas.org...

Having read Walsh’s book Firewall it’s dubious that Gates is trustworthy and an increase in the size of the military means they are plotting again. When the men at the top call for more bodies the war machine will soon be spilling blood. The blood of the masses not the ‘elite’ I’m sure we have to teach Iran and Syria all about democracy

Actually I was responding to pugachev not u dgtempe. I agree with your post.

The events that have unfolded in the past few weeks are disturbing. I am unsure of what Bush's true intentions are; is he attempting to instigate a large regional conflict before he leaves office? Will he leave office? All I know is that if this situation continues to deteriorate and if we refuse to take steps for peace we will require many more troops. I have a difficult time, however, imagining the government instating a draft. The people of this nation will not accept conscription unless another, larger, more devastating 'attack' occurs in the United States.

Originally posted by forestlady

The only way they will be able to do that is through the Draft, which probably isn't too far in the future. Only 11% of Americans advocate sending in more troops. So....when they start the Draft, that's when it will hit the fan. Could be worse than the draft during Vietnam with all the protests.

Don't think it will be that difficult ... if you read the article posted by pugachev it shows that current ongoing recruitment levels are at about 119,000 troops a year.

Currently, the active duty Army recruits 80,000 young Americans each year with the Marines bringing in 39,000.

With Vietnam we had 540,000 troops committed at the peak of the war, compared to 140,000 for Iraq. Also in Vietnam we lost somewhere around 58,000 troops ... thankfully we are nowhere near that number now in Iraq.

In order for there to be a draft there would have to be a significant increase in deployment size to Iraq. The 92,000 troops that they are increasing is not intended for Iraq but to add to the military's size in general. At least that's what they're saying.

[edit on 1/11/2007 by SmallMindsBigIdeas]

Originally posted by SmallMindsBigIdeas
The 92,000 troops that they are increasing is not intended for Iraq but to add to the military's size in general. At least that's what they're saying.

[edit on 1/11/2007 by SmallMindsBigIdeas]

Thank you. This was the only point I was trying to get across.

Originally posted by pugachev

Originally posted by SmallMindsBigIdeas
The 92,000 troops that they are increasing is not intended for Iraq but to add to the military's size in general. At least that's what they're saying.

[edit on 1/11/2007 by SmallMindsBigIdeas]

Thank you. This was the only point I was trying to get across.

But you failed because you were less interested in articulating a point and more interested in insulting forestlady. Way to go!

AAC

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation

Originally posted by pugachev

Originally posted by SmallMindsBigIdeas
The 92,000 troops that they are increasing is not intended for Iraq but to add to the military's size in general. At least that's what they're saying.

[edit on 1/11/2007 by SmallMindsBigIdeas]

Thank you. This was the only point I was trying to get across.

But you failed because you were less interested in articulating a point and more interested in insulting forestlady. Way to go!

AAC

Sometimes it seems to me that some users deliberately mislead others. I've witnessed this many times on this board. However, I shouldn't have been so rude. I apologize, polanski.

[edit on 1/11/07 by pugachev]

Originally posted by pugachev
You're wrong. He said to fight against terrorism because that's what we are war against. He's talking about increasing the over all military size. They were speaking about this same statement earlier on the news.

[edit on 1/11/07 by pugachev]

Just out of curiosity, where do you think alot of those troops are going to go?

even if half of those troops to go infastructure and other bases around the world (and I think half is a pretty generous estimate), thats just under 50,000 troops designated for combat in Iraq or wherever else this war spreads to in the region.

Dont kid yourself, many more thousands of American young people are going to die in Iraq. The reason we havent seen the body count in Iraq that Nam had is because we havent sent over that many people... yet.