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.

 

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

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   
I was under the impression that there was enough troops to get the job done, and that the generals of the armed forces requested such—and it was the private sector generals, Rumsfeld and crew, who insisted the job could be done with less.




posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by nextguyinline
I was under the impression that there was enough troops to get the job done, and that the generals of the armed forces requested such—and it was the private sector generals, Rumsfeld and crew, who insisted the job could be done with less.


Whatever the case may be, someone certainly fouled up somewhere. I have said for several years now that Bush was listening to the wrong people,namely Rumsfeld.

Now, it can't be denied that Bush selected some rather intelligent people around him. However, intelligence means little if it is leading in the wrong direction.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:11 PM
link   
SpeakerofTruth, do not try to state that the United States has a small military. You easily have the largest military force on the planet, you have bases scattered everywhere and are currently on a conquest for global supremecy. You are the global facists, you have more military presence globally and a stockpile of 8'000 nucleur weapons. May I ask you, at who do you think these warheads are aimed? If you could give me a list numbered from 1 to 8000 it would be highly appreciated. You are a pretender.

"We should be marching anywhere from 10 to 15 million men at any given time."

The real issue at hand here is the role in which America percieves for itself in the world. There is no debate any longer, no comprimise and no room for any opposition. Oppose and die. The United Nations and International Courts of Law are totally ignored, simply laughed away by the Whitehouse. Are the American public so arrogant as to not realise that there will be opposition to this parade across the surface of the earth? It appears so. I do not support terrorists any more than I support 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'. This is murder and expansion of empire, not protectionism or a simple conquest to capture Bin Laden or topple Saddam.

The Americans believe themselves to be 'the little children of the light' spreading good and freedom around the world - and your tool for this spread of good and freedom? Clusterbombs and Nucleur warheads. Of course long with a healthy pile of dead, rotting, festering children who couldn't get out the way of the 50 starred domina.

This is a disgrace upon humanity. I am totally ashamed to be British and have played any part in this murder. Do not get me wrong, I had absolutely no respect for the United States of America before the Middle-Eastern conflicts. You have systematically devestated countries worldwide leaving the citizens to live in squalor and death for the last 100 years. It will not be forgotten.

There is an answer to this problem that has been created. The problem is it involves realising your tight grip upon thw world, and we all know, the powerful don't like to give away their power.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   
superpaul your attack on the speakerofthetruth is uncalled for!

We are debating this war and America and Britain are paying a price. We only want the best for all, unfortunately we are being failed by our leadership.

Don't be so high minded, we are all on the same side, just debating different aspects.

Chill



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I was a military wife through all Reagan years, Bush and all Clinton years, 22 years and some months, I know the about the cuts the early retirement packages.

Yes during Clinton it was the most Exodus of military personnel.

But if Bush knew that the military was outnumbered because the cuts on personnel and he was already planning to invaded and go into war with the middle east he at least could have taken the time to have enough troops to do what he wanted to do.

But rather wagged his war in a hasty way because he was afraid that he was not going to make it back as president a second time like his father before him.

So yes Clinton help with the down grade of the military but Bush has taken us into a baseless war and who knows for how long and what else he got hidden under his sleeves.

[edit on 18-1-2007 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by superpaul55
SpeakerofTruth, do not try to state that the United States has a small military. You easily have the largest military force on the planet, you have bases scattered everywhere and are currently on a conquest for global supremecy. You are the global facists, you have more military presence globally and a stockpile of 8'000 nucleur weapons. May I ask you, at who do you think these warheads are aimed? If you could give me a list numbered from 1 to 8000 it would be highly appreciated. You are a pretender.



Here is the actual number Military personnel: 1,473,960 (IISS) Here is the link to the article that tells you

Military Personnel


I stick by my opinion. Our military is rather small for a country that has over 300 million people in it.

[edit on 18-1-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Unfortunately this is not uncalled for. SpeakerofTruth is not a 'speaker of truth' and has just been removed from his little media based pod. We are not on the same side at all. America and Britain may have payed a small so-called 'price' for this international piracy. I will tell you who has paid the real price.

The 100'000 dead Iraqi's civilians just trying to live their lives, making the best of what they had. They had no choice whether to be born in Iraq. They had no choice whether to take place in 'humanitarian bombing' events. They didn't want to die. Nobody talks of them, they are an embarrassment to this new era of 'high precison capability warefare'. To end this disgrace a new attitude is required, this attitude requires America to stop invading sovereign states and respect people.

www.nationmaster.com... -expenditures-dollar-figure

[edit on 18-1-2007 by superpaul55]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mel1962
superpaul your attack on the speakerofthetruth is uncalled for!

We are debating this war and America and Britain are paying a price. We only want the best for all, unfortunately we are being failed by our leadership.

Don't be so high minded, we are all on the same side, just debating different aspects.

Chill


Thank you,Mel... However, it is no surprise to me that I am being attacked for thinking that the U.S should have a bigger military...It's a wonder some bleeding heart liberal hasn't come on here and said something.

do, I necessarily like the whole Iraq situation? Certainly not... however,unfortuanately, it's not a situations that we can just pull out of like so many are suggesting we do.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
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.


Simple “play” (more than likely “pay”) on words for a wanting audience…

The “surge” is (not will be) coming from overlapping rotations…this is common knowledge. All simply accomplished by keeping some deployments ‘longer’ and ‘upping’ the rotations schedule for others. Only one…one…(1)…group will deploy off rotation: 2nd brigade of the 82nd Airborne out of Fort Bragg. With this in mind, understand this “surge” is less than the troop deployments for 2004.

But…can one honestly believe with almost 90-95% of the USAF on the ground, with current naval deployments as they exist today (which do not approach over-taxing the USN); added with one of the largest and considered most lethal armored division on the planet sitting idle ready to go…yet , the claims are the US military as a whole is “overstretched”….believe overstretched how?

If so then why is there a new marine expeditionary force is due on station with the CVN Stennis…where did that come from? Two carrier strike groups (after the CVN Reagan SG) are surge ready….etc.

There exists more than one branch to the US military….perhaps this is the misconception.


mg



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Missed_gear, yeah, but the total for all four branches is not even 1.5 million....Read the link I presented a couple of posts ago...



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   


You have systematically devestated countries worldwide leaving the citizens to live in squalor and death for the last 100 years. It will not be forgotten.


Your horse has a broken leg.

British Empire 1897.


So we have approximately 600 more years to learn better.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Would you like to provide me that list numbered from 1 to 8000 please? I was just wondering what targets your military expansion would cover that are not already covered?

I personally don't play the game of who killed less.

[edit on 18-1-2007 by superpaul55]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by superpaul55
SpeakerofTruth, do not try to state that the United States has a small military. You easily have the largest military force on the planet, you have bases scattered everywhere and are currently on a conquest for global supremecy.


It may seems like that because we have a very nice and smooth system of rotation of deployment that has worked very well with the military making possible for the personnel to work overseas for a term of 1 year with not spouse and 3 with spouses.

And a good in home reserves.

But guess what bush has change all that the smooth system that has worked so well is now a nightmare for the military and the troops.

What we have is an overstressed and overstretched military trying to keep up.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Okay, well, here is another estimate that is a bit different from what I previously gave



Total troops 2,685,713 (Ranked 7th)
U.S Personnel



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by superpaul55
Unfortunately this is not uncalled for. SpeakerofTruth is not a 'speaker of truth' and has just been removed from his little media based pod. We are not on the same side at all. America and Britain may have payed a small so-called 'price' for this international piracy. I will tell you who has paid the real price.

The 100'000 dead Iraqi's civilians just trying to live their lives, making the best of what they had. They had no choice whether to be born in Iraq. They had no choice whether to take place in 'humanitarian bombing' events. They didn't want to die. Nobody talks of them, they are an embarrassment to this new era of 'high precison capability warefare'. To end this disgrace a new attitude is required, this attitude requires America to stop invading sovereign states and respect people.

Superpaul

In some respects I agree with you. It all comes down to the quicker the war is over the less that will die.

We have 2 choices, send more troops and slaughter the insurgency

or

pull out and let them slaughter each other and let one side win.

Not very good choices, but that is what they are unfortunately and there is nothing you or I can do about it.




posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   
["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."] marg6043

I am sorry Marge but that simply is not correct. After the fall of the Soviet Union, during the tenure of Bush senior, the Republican leadership decided that in keeping with their rhetoric about fiscal responsiblity that without the threat of the Soviet Union, we could begin downsizing the military. There was a lot of talk back then for what was hyped as the peace dividend, supposedly the savings of the American public in lower taxes from not having to finance such a large military. Of course no one ever saw a penny of that because the military industrial complex pushed to upgrade our hardware with the savings. So, while it is true that this continued under Clinton, it started under Bush senior and was pushed by the fiscal conservatives of the republican party. That it is somehow Clinton's fault is one more of the right's distortions and lies.

[edit on 18-1-2007 by grover]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by superpaul55
Would you like to provide me that list numbered from 1 to 8000 please? I was just wondering what targets your military expansion would cover that are not already covered?

I[edit on 18-1-2007 by superpaul55]


"Superpaul"
You act as if I stated that as a fact...I suggest you re-read what I posted and quit flaming me...Thank ya. I said that it was an ESTIMATE THAT I HAD HEARD You have a bloody lovely day now!!

[edit on 18-1-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   
What Bush is lookig for is more combat ground troops in Bagdad. The Air Force and Navy won't be of use in his current Surge Plans. it will be Marines and reg Army troops.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I am sorry Marge but that simply is not correct. After the fall of the Soviet Union, during the tenure of Bush senior, the Republican leadership decided that in keeping with their rhetoric about fiscal responsiblity that without the threat of the Soviet Union, we could begin downsizing the military.


You know, I knew that, but as usual I went with the most talked about Clinton's fault:Lil:

Even my husband told me that it was not Clinton, now that I remember the early retirements was actually from the Bush senior administration and not Clinton.

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   
"We have 2 choices, send more troops and slaughter the insurgency or pull out and let them slaughter each other and let one side win.

Not very good choices, but that is what they are unfortunately and there is nothing you or I can do about it."

You have missed out the one big choice at the end of it.

The United States relasing its grip upon the planet and not invading any further sovereign states. To start answering to the United Nations and the International Courts of Law. To disband your concentration camp. To stop acting as international cowboys looting the worlds resources.

This requires a distinct change of attitute, not the rise or fall of troop levels. This requires you to stop ruling the world, something you are stubbornly unable to do.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join