Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bush Told that only 9,000 troops available for the 'surge'

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   

CBS: Military Tells Bush It Has Only 9,000 Troops Available For ‘Surge’
A State Department official leaked word this week that President Bush is considering sending “no more than 15,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops” to Iraq. “Instead of a surge, it is a bump,” the official said.

This claim was bolstered last night by CBS’s David Martin, who reported that military commanders have told Bush they are prepared to execute a troop escalation of just 9,000 soldiers and Marines into Iraq, “with another 10,000 on alert in Kuwait and the U.S.”

What on earth?

It's funny to me that Bush ran on the notion of lessening the pressure on our overstretched military. It is more stretched now than it has ever been!! I just really don't understand this guy at all.

My sentiments agree with something that some other poster said about Bush, "Either the man is delusional or brilliant. I am not sure which." Decisions like this is what makes me think it is the former rather than the latter.




posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Could it be that the present budget only can support another 9 thousand. I remember that Bush said that he will send the troops with whatever budget he has from this year.

So I imagine that he can only support now 9 thousand.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Marg, for a country that has 300 million people in it, our military is not very large. I have heard estimates anywhere from 800,000 to 2 million military personnel. Now to me, neither figure is very large for a nation with the population that the U.S has.. We should be marching anywhere from 10 to 15 million men at any given time. However, we are not.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   
9000, isnt going to achieve much.
It definately isnt going to achieve, what bush claims 20,000 would achieve.

9000 wont even weather the storm for the next poor schmuck president to take the reigns, which i feel is exactly what bush wants.

Youve got to feel for the soliders, when you sign up you sign up for your outlined time served periods, in the trust your leader will use you, only when your country is in grave danger.

If there is only 9000 troops available, Then the situation is much more dire than i thought.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Back Off People, no one said he Bush could count!


But, seriously the military is playing a shell game with their personnel. It is very sad and its unfortunate so few are doing so much for so many!

God Bless Our Troops!

To Hell with the idiot that resides in the White House!



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Marg, for a country that has 300 million people in it, our military is not very large. I have heard estimates anywhere from 800,000 to 2 million military personnel. .


You know the reason we are in the place we are right now with the troops is because the cuts to our military by Clinton.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Marg, for a country that has 300 million people in it, our military is not very large. I have heard estimates anywhere from 800,000 to 2 million military personnel. .


You know the reason we are in the place we are right now with the troops is because the cuts to our military by Clinton.


Marge

Iraq invaded 2003, they have had 4 years to build up strength levels!

Clinton hasn't been president since Jan. 2001, what happen in the mean time!

O' Yeah thats right all of Bush's screw ups are Bill Clintons fault!




posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
You know the reason we are in the place we are right now with the troops is because the cuts to our military by Clinton.


I suspect that is much of it. However, troop levels have never really been where they should be for the U.S. Even during the Reagan administration, we were only marching about a 1.5 million man military. I suppose we think that because we have weaponry that some other nations don't have, we are indestructable.

However, I don't think that man power should be underestimated. I'd hate to see our minute military take on a giant like China. I really would.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Marg, for a country that has 300 million people in it, our military is not very large. I have heard estimates anywhere from 800,000 to 2 million military personnel. .


You know the reason we are in the place we are right now with the troops is because the cuts to our military by Clinton.


Maybe so,

But who would of thought during clintons time we would be in such a costly, endless war against a region so enflamed in hatred.

Who brought us to this position?



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Maybe so,

But who would of thought during clintons time we would be in such a costly, endless war against a region so enflamed in hatred.

Who brought us to this position?


Well, I certainly wouldn't have thought about it. However, Clinton has admitted that he had ample opportunity to have gotten Osama... he just didn't.

However, this whole thing going on now is beyond Osama bin Laden,Saddam or any other singular entity. It has devolved into a situation that I am sure Bush never pictured...

However, we have painted ourselves into a corner that we are not just going to be able to slyly slither out of now. We will either have to fight, unfortunately, or have no where to retreat to. where are we going to retreat to? Sure, we can bring the troops home... Does anyone really think that's going to stop the violence towards America,Americans or America's interests? I seriously doubt it.

[edit on 18-1-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Bring the troops home and let Iraq fester into what ever it forms into will for sure, ensure an attack some where down the track.

However, if we keep our men there, the attacks will not cease.

There really is NO answer to this problem thats has been created.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Well if there is 10,000 on wait in Kuwait and the United States that would equal 19,000 troops. Which is close to the number of 21,000 now if this is true these soldiers are no longer on wait, they're headed to War.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
However, we have painted ourselves into a corner that we are not just going to be able to slyly slither out of now. We will either have to fight, unfortunately, or have no where to retreat to. where are we going to retreat to? Sure, we can bring the troops home... Does anyone really think that's going to stop the violence towards America,Americans or America's interests? I seriously doubt it.


Well...actually, bringing the troops home for two years to let them rest would be a good thing. Let them rest up for the next Pres. to screw us nice an' hard...

Then the 'Allies' could try their thing (after all, they all have the same weaponry) at it. And if the Allies don't think it is in thier interest...well, then that says something about the war in the first place (retarded).

It's like sports, you don't keep a guy in the game the whole time for every game in every season...he'd be useless half-way through after a while. Same with the Military, I suspect.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Bring the troops home and let Iraq fester into what ever it forms into will for sure, ensure an attack some where down the track.

However, if we keep our men there, the attacks will not cease.

There really is NO answer to this problem thats has been created.


and that's really the crux of the issue. The only plausible alternative we have is to fight. If one looks at Muslim history, it is clear what they do. They wait. They know that most people do not have the persistence to fight over the long term... they wait 5-10 years, take the blows, then, when the other side quits, they move in. America, if we are going to continue to exist asa nation, cannot allow them to do it to us.... If we do, then we will travel with the other fools down history's lane.

[edit on 18-1-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne

Well...actually, bringing the troops home for two years to let them rest would be a good thing. Let them rest up for the next Pres. to screw us nice an' hard...

Then the 'Allies' could try their thing (after all, they all have the same weaponry) at it. And if the Allies don't think it is in thier interest...well, then that says something about the war in the first place (retarded).

It's like sports, you don't keep a guy in the game the whole time for every game in every season...he'd be useless half-way through after a while. Same with the Military, I suspect.


Well, you are right. However, if our military was at the personnel level that it should be, this wouldn't even be an issue. Would it? I mean, if we had a 10 million man military, we could move the worn out troops out, and move fresh ones in.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Actually, we have a lot more than 9, 000 troops. What they mean is that we only have 9,000 COMBAT soldiers. We have a lot of support and non combat troops, but that is not what Bush is looking for. Clinton did not reduce the number of Combat troops.

As Usual, the current administration is making plans without consulting anyone. He created a special Iraq commission, of very experienced experts, and then totally ignored everything they had to say and simply said, Uh huh. I'm gonna send in some more cowboys. He has no idea what he is doing as we saw with his "Stay the course" plan which was not working at all. His own party is abandoning him like rats from a sinking ship. Sending in more troops, without a new plan of action and clearly defined goals and timetables is clearly, not something an intelligent person would do. That he is Commander in Chief, and didn't even know his remaining troop strength is complete negligence of duty. Impeachment might be a better alternative.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Bush = worst president ever
Condi = lightweight
Cheney = Nixon Reduex & Haliburton Gold Mine
Gonzales = Mexican Governement Pimp & Enemy of Freedom
Gates = Daddy's babysitter for Georgie
Snow = Gerbils
Bush Twins = Britney & Paris, just less blond
Laura Bush = Pickles, why doesn't she leave the idiot!
Only 9,000 troops available = read above


Can we survive another 2 years of dates with "Miss Management"



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   
ROFLMAO Good one Mel Miss Management.... Too funy!!



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mel1962
Bush = worst president ever



I think I'll let history be the judge of that. However,I will say that from where I am sitting, I think he is certainly one to do what he wants to do, regardless of the ramifications.

When I look at some of the decisions he has made, I see a whole host of things that could happen down the road they may or may not have been intended.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by mel1962
Bush = worst president ever



I think I'll let history be the judge of that. However,I will say that from where I am sitting, I think he is certainly one to do what he wants to do, regardless of the ramifications.

When I look at some of the decisions he has made, I see a whole host of things that could happen down the road they may or may not have been intended.


Beg to differ with you, but I see him as rich boy who was never accountable for his actions and doesn't care about what his decisions do to others!

He has screwed up every company, person and country he has gotten his hands on, plus had all the advantages of his families political ties and fortune.

God Help Us!





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join