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 more troops !!!WHY!!!

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   
bush is wanting to send over 20,000 thousand more troops
over seas. What is this man thinking? is there sompthing over
there other than oil he wants. we know he went over to get
osama binladen, what happen with that we dont even see him
trying to catch him anymore. thats why we went over there but
yet bush never sesses to amaze me. the real questin is why are
we still over there. why send more troops and for what, population
controll. i belive bush has gone way to far this time. if we send
that many troops over to iraq, where is all our defense going to
be. he truly is his daddys son.




posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by shadowsniper is there something over
there other than oil he wants.

A thing called 'pride'



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by shadowsniper
bush is wanting to send over 20,000 thousand more troops
over seas. What is this man thinking? is there sompthing over
there other than oil he wants. we know he went over to get
osama binladen, what happen with that we dont even see him
trying to catch him anymore. thats why we went over there but
yet bush never sesses to amaze me. the real questin is why are
we still over there. why send more troops and for what, population
controll. i belive bush has gone way to far this time. if we send
that many troops over to iraq, where is all our defense going to
be. he truly is his daddys son.

First of all, this belongs in the Politics forum, I think.

Second, this seems to be more of a rhetorical rant.

Third, while I realize that you could very well be quite young or not speak English natively, I suggest that when posting in a forum like this that you make a solid attempt at correct spelling and sentence/paragraph structure. It need not be perfect, but a rambling misspelled rant that makes the reader's eyes hurt isn't going to gain you any credibility.


Regardless of #2, I'll answer for you.-

Before the elections, Democrats accused the President of not handling the insurgency w/ the appropriate measures. This is part of what led to the dismissal/retirement of Rumsfeld. Many Democrats called for an increase of troops, at least re-deploy back to levels seen early in the war.

Troop levels were at nearly 170,000 at one point, and had declined. This is a move to bring those levels back up. The reasoning is that an additional 20,000 will help retake some areas, even in the capitol, where chaos is reigning. However, these are not "unprecedented" amounts of troops, it is basically an increase back to levels seen earlier in the conflict.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   
start watching 911 videos on video.google.com According to people who have followed this 911 deeply. Afghanistna and Iraq are becoming massively militarized, there are ships heading to the sea near Iran, and they have bases all over Iran now. They are going to be kicking Iran's ass soon.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   
That's what I've been saying since we invaded both Afganistan and Iraq.....

Could it be that Iran was behind 9/11?

Iran is currently surrounded and, if there is a confrontation, will have to defend 4 borders.

(Didn't work well for Germany........)



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Maybe they want to secure downtown baghdad for the victory parade?



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
That's what I've been saying since we invaded both Afganistan and Iraq.....

Could it be that Iran was behind 9/11?

Iran is currently surrounded and, if there is a confrontation, will have to defend 4 borders.

(Didn't work well for Germany........)



It's about world domination, it's about killing muslims and doing away with islam, it's about bringing the world one step closer to a New World Order. Iran was NOT behind 9/11. There are mountains of evidence that prove 9/11 was government sponsered terrorism in order to initiate a war that was preplanned and included taking over afghanistan and iraq, laying out pipeline, setting up military bases and then going after Iran and Syria. Guess what happens if they take Iran, there going for North Korea next.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Personally, I don't think the 20,000 troops have anything to do with securing Baghdad, or whatever they claim. I think they are bringing in the troops as a defensive means if the US, UK, or Israel decide to attack Iran. If there is an attack on Iran there will most likely be a counter attack on Iraq. Consider the timing on which it was said that these 20k extra troops were going to be added. It happened the same day the Armed Services did away with terms in Iraq; so now troops are going to have to stay longer than they did before as well. This means that 20k could go up if more people stay and less people leave, thus it could be another sign of an "escalation" in the region.

Also, the US is currently bringing in a second or third carrier group into the gulf, why, Iran?! Everything is happening at once, and the US isn't the only country flexing on Iran these days, the UK is also sending it's navy into the gulf as welll, also to deal with Iran.

Iran made the same mistake Iraq made, which was they though Bush and Blair were bluffing and didn't take their demands seriously. It is time to take the Nuke back from Iran. Although this will be extremely ugly for mankind, inaction at this point would lead to an even worse scenario.

The world can think of the US what it will, but hopefully the attack on Iran will be directed only at nuclear sites and not Iranian people.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   
it is about the oil thing and the competition for oil between the nations. it just happens to be that saudi , (the fat elephant) seems to be the one with the most oil right now. usa is unable to locate any elephants, the small oil well finds are just not enough to fuel our economy or the nations. the big oil is in saudi and iran . the oil beneath the ground is connected in a vein that links saudi oil and iran. we the usa make bids on this oil along with some of the other nations. the small oil finds are not enough to supply the nations, so whatever the nations don't get from the small oil wells of thier own, the saudis take the slak. if you look on the web our imports are far more than our exports of oil. our oil is running dry and the big heads of the oil industry are going over there this february. we are over there to protect the oil from iran who wants to take us off of the supply any means possible. if this means to unite with those others who supply us, so the usa runs dry and goes into an economic slump or a huge depression. think about it , on a large scale we have no vehicles that can run on other means. if nothing gets shipped, you as the consumer will starve to death litterally. how will we get our goods with no gas. nothing is mass produced in the new technology to fix this repecussion. we will fall into ruin if we have no gas. this nuke thing only makes matters worse. wether congress likes it or not , we will war with iran if iran gets in the way of this big oil deal going down this february. this oil deal is the blood of america. no oil, no shipping, you starve for goods. this all points to a revolution. a fact is a fact. this is what is going down now. the oil is running dry. iran will intervene, usa wants to be in iraq because it is close to iran for an invasion. we need more troops over there, when this happens. there are other nations involved in this , all our battleships are over there now in case this goes sour.

[edit on 17-1-2007 by littlebird]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Bush is using twenty thousand US troops as political pawns. Bush is using the so called troop surge to divert any withdrawl calls from the Dems. Using troops as political pawns is just plain wrong.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   
It was only a couple of years ago, the 2004 election where Bush said "it's all about technology, it's not about numbers anymore." But now he wants more troops, which contradicts what he said in front of Kerry.

[edit on 15-2-2007 by wildcat]



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Of course he wants more troops, we are building bases in Iraq, there will be no withdrawl; those troops did not bleed, die and kill for nothing. Americans want oil, Bush supplies. Iran wants to sell oil to China, Americans dont want them to, Bush stops them.

The Straight of Hormuz must be secure, this means building up a military presence in a region with conflict and land disputes. Essential, this is the narrow body of water where oil exiting the middle east must pass. Think it is a critical key in the cog?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Um... because we need more troops? .. Or .. are you a better military planner then our generals?
if the Army says 20k more.. send those boys over, we don't pay them to play army on the weekend for nothing, its a real job with real risks that thy understand.. they are to follow orders. 20k more troops does not mean 20k more possible cassualties..



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   
He wants them so the people and congress will be squabbling over this while he moves his navy into play for Iran. It's so obvious.





top topics



 
2

log in

join