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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by runetang


But dont be decieved, if the homeland was attacked there'd be many, many, many milita men with various guns of various kinds who are straight shots and willing to fight and die in defense of their country. These men number in the low millions too I bet.

So just consider the home infantry forces entirely "irregulars" .. hehe


Runetang, that is exactly why I am not anti-Militia... I actually think that one day, they and God will be our country's only salvation. The time may be approaching quicker than we realize.




posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mel1962

This is about the control of oil and other resources.

I guess its ok for the Chinese to practice shooting down satellites and exploiting poor countries for their oil because there "good communist" and the "evil americans" are out to promote democracy.


[edit on 1/18/07 by mel1962]


I suspect that you are right. I have heard people repeatedly say, "Well...all of that stuff is about oil." Of course it is!! That is not even a matter of debate in my honest opinion. However, the question I ask the world is simple. Who would you have in control of the oil reserves in Iraq? America or Communist China?



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I have also lost friends to Iraq, but I am a proffesional soldier I cannot loose my discipline becuase of this. It is hard, but you are in a war zone and the general Iraqi people dont wan't this war and violence and never asked for it, Bush wanted it!

Being angry in the Iraq situation no excuse whatsover to treat Iraqi civililians as I have seen US soldiers do, to shoot a 10 year child in his knee at point blank range because he threw a stone at your hummer or to stand in a line with your buddies and expose your penis to girls coming out of a school.

The US Army officer's lack of control over his troops discipline is a major reason to why some normal otherwise freindly Iraqi citizens have taken to arms and are killing US soldiers.

War changes men into animals if discipline isn't instilled by Officer's.

Vietnam was fought and lost in a similar way to Iraq, to make a mistake once is forgivable, to not learn by a mistake and do it again is unforgivable and just plain stupid.

If I were in their shoes I know I would want to kill US troops for their conduct in my country.

[edit on 19/1/07 by Jimmy1880]



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Yeah,Jimmy,I am sure a lot of that is going on. I was in the Army for a while. I served in Afghanistan for about a year and ahlf,maybe two years. It wasn't fun...

Unfortunately, the military is taking just about any breed of person that will join right now. While I was in the Army, I heard that they even lowered the ASVAB score for entrance. When I joined, you had to score at least a 31,I scored a 78, but just before I got out, I heard that the qualification was a 29.
I think that is pretty bad when you have to start accepting people who really have no skill level at all.

[edit on 19-1-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
HAHA, I have to laugh at this superpaul guy... superpaul Just be happy America saved you during WWII. Or would you rather be apart of the 3rd Reich??? You seem to oppose America So much, you would probably rather be a Fascist than live with America being the #1 Superpower. It's ok...I know your bitter about a few American colonies kicking your ass to create a nation of freedom and independence. A representative republic ran by the people for the people.

Just go hug the Queen and revel in your countries squeaky clean history. Your country has never harmed the hair on a little child’s head before. The British Empire never ever said a mean thing to the French or hurt poor little Gandhi in his peaceful Indian protest. You=Fail….. You fill stranger's parking meters and walk little old ladies across the street. Go drink your tea and crumpets while AMERICA provides more support for refugees of war, more aid to dying, disasters of a country than poor little Britain will ever achieve.

Don't be mad that your not apart of the greatest country that exist right now. This war will eventually end and guess what, we will still be on top. It won’t last forever but America isn't going anywhere soon.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Halcyon,

Please don't use the forums to have rants and to flame other posters, go to below top secret if you want to have a rant, thay have a forum for it.

I wish this thread to keep going with constructive arguements, post like yours are not welcome.

I'm british and your comments are likely to offend all brits and not just the person you aim your post to.

Last I checked Offending people is an ATS no no!


[edit on 19/1/07 by Jimmy1880]



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jimmy1880
Actually Halcyon, the outcome of world war 2 was more due to Russia putting up an excellent resistance to the Nazi's and not as you state because america saved the day.



To an extent that is true. However,I don't really see how England or France could have continued to survive through world war 2 without the entrance of America. England and Franch were already laying in ruin when we entered the war.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   
So it's ok for the superpaul guy to spread his Anti-American vendetta all across the boards but it’s NOT ACCEPTABLE for me to defend my country?? I know I shouldn't have stooped to his level of ignorance but sometimes all this anti-America rhetoric is just too much.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Oh, by the way.... The Russians didn't do squat, it was the Russian Winter which stopped the Nazi's from advancing further and finishing off Moscow. All the Russians did was throw bodies at the advancing German front.... Eentually they outnumbered them and won. I wouldn't call the whole situation "a sucessfull resitance" after counting the losses on both sides.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jimmy1880


Being angry in the Iraq situation no excuse whatsover to treat Iraqi civililians as I have seen US soldiers do, to shoot a 10 year child in his knee at point blank range because he threw a stone at your hummer or to stand in a line with your buddies and expose your penis to girls coming out of a school.

The US Army officer's lack of control over his troops discipline is a major reason to why some normal otherwise freindly Iraqi citizens have taken to arms and are killing US soldiers.

War changes men into animals if discipline isn't instilled by Officer's.

Vietnam was fought and lost in a similar way to Iraq, to make a mistake once is forgivable, to not learn by a mistake and do it again is unforgivable and just plain stupid.

If I were in their shoes I know I would want to kill US troops for their conduct in my country.


Then you pretty much point out the fact that you lose troops in Southern Iraq, with your experience in dealing with people from the British Empire's past with colonies. Do we expect that there be no casualties because we start being nice? I doubt you can win hearts and minds against Sunnis removed from power. If the Brits were in the Triangle of Death, the Brits probably lose like its whole army based on casualties both dead and wounded inflicted on the U.S. military. Not to mention that we have seen kids getting paid to plant IEDs or used as scouts to tell insurgents where the troops are at, makes the soldiers get pissed off about those kids. But that don't mean every child is considered a suspect automatically.

[edit on 19-1-2007 by deltaboy]



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Halycon,

I actually editted out my remark about WW2 because it was 1. off topic and 2. not backed up with any information.

Please please please can we keep this thread on track I WAS enjoying it



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Anyway, as we were discussing... Jimmy, don't you think that the military should have more personnel than it does?



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I do not think the US should send more troops, I think the military needs to change into damage limitation mode. The American public need to force Bush to swallow his pride, admit he's failed the Iraqi people and Get your troops home. I just hope any sucessor to bush is capable enough to repair the middle east by alternative means and to radically change US foreign policy.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Your empire has nothing to do with freedom. Cluster Bombs and Nucleur warheads are your tools with which you have and continue to forge your empire.

They tend to leave a bloody mess.
You like the bloody mess.
Its not your bloody mess.
Its their bloody mess.

They are bloody ignorant.
They do not bloody understand the gifts I offer.

The 50 starred domina has has a hard on,
it wants to f#ck.

[edit on 19-1-2007 by superpaul55]



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   
We got thousands of troops that are not doing anything in Asia and Europe and act more as deterrence relating to the Cold War. They should be moved to Iraq to boost as well as replace soldiers who have been there over a year.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I agree, we have many forces around the world which would be in much better use elsewhere. IMO The troop surge should first go to Afghanistan and end that front of the war once and for all. Then we can concentrate all our forces on Iraq. We need some kind of plan to hurry and end this war without cutting and running with our tails between our legs. The reason being is that if we just leave, that will be a victory in the eyes of radical Islam, and all terrorism. It will prove that they can kill and cause mayhem and get away with it. I agree with many that say a needless war is a crime and tragedy, but there is nothing needless about Iraq. I for one feel that it is just as much a message to terrorist all over the world as it is the battles and skirmishes in Baghdad.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jimmy1880
I do not think the US should send more troops, I think the military needs to change into damage limitation mode. The American public need to force Bush to swallow his pride, admit he's failed the Iraqi people and Get your troops home.


Jimmy, what I mean is, considering that the world is as it is, don't you think that the 1.5 million-2.6 million troops that we have is kind of slim? For a country the size of the U.S, I would think that we'd have at least 5 million...

As far as more troops going into Iraq, well, I think we are too overstretched now. 20,000 more troops is not going to accomplish Bush's goal, and 9,000 certainly is not.


The American public need to force Bush to swallow his pride, admit he's failed the Iraqi people and Get your troops home.


And do what? Wait for the next attack? You see, that is the conuundrum that the United States has gotten itself into. There is no where to retreat. Pulling out of Iraq is not going to cease the hatred that these people have for us. As a matter of fact, as one poster already stated, if we were to pull out and Iraq falls even further into disarray,it's likely to cause them to hate us even more.

[edit on 19-1-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 19-1-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 19-1-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
We got thousands of troops that are not doing anything in Asia and Europe and act more as deterrence relating to the Cold War.


I personally think those troops should be brought back to the states and put on our Canadian and Mexican border. I have believed that for quite some time. What the hell is the purpose of us having troops in Germany or France anyway? Cold war is over. Bring them back to the states and utilize them on our porous borders.

[edit on 19-1-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 10:18 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. 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.

10-15 million troops eh?
Superior Numbers does not equal a superior military
Remember, Iraq had a "Million Man" Army just before we went in, however how effective was that? Our military is good and trained to fight mostly other conventional militaries, what we are fighting in Iraq is an insurgency: guerilla warfare.
Examine military history and one will find superior numbers do not equal decisive victories. Believe it or not it is usually the military that has inferior numbers that develops better strategies that produce the best ratio of soldier to enemy casuality.
Lets look at the politcal perspective. An Army with numbers in the millions would not be a volunteer one, lets face it not that many people are willing to enlist. We would have to have a draft. Im in the military, I dont want to be fighting next to someone who is not there by choice.
Our current military, despite its relative small numbers, is of outstanding quality in terms of training and recources.
Do I think we could get a bit larger? Yes.
However, by todays standards there is no such thing as conventional warfare. Iraq demonstrates that we do not need to change our numbers, but in my opinion, we need to change our strategy. Let me make an analogy. You can try to push a square through a triangular hole with as much force as you want but it will never go through. The only way to make it go through is to cut a triangle out of the square. We can keep on sending more troops as much as we want, however, if there is no change in the way we are handling this conflict militarily we will never reach a decisive conflict. This concept has been explained and analyzed althroughout history, it is the basis for Sun Tzu's The Art of War and B.H Lidell's Strategy.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Well, contrary to the opinons of some members/congress critters/wannabe presidents, the military is overstretched. Readiness levels are at the lowest levels in decades, and we've got barely enough oomph to prosecute the current campaign, nevermind another one against Syria/Iran/Everyone else.


www.salon.com...



www.house.gov...

The lowest readiness levels for the vast majority of non-deployed active-duty combat units. The situation for the Army Guard and Reserves is worse.

Thousands of key Army weapons platforms – such as tanks, Humvees, Bradley Fighting Vehicles – sitting in disuse at Army maintenance depots for lack of funding.

Indications of growing drug and discipline problems among the newest Army recruits.


Part of the problem is the fact that recruitment was down sharply, and in order to compensate, the miitary relaxed its guidelines, hired private contractors to do some of the recruiting (which is bad news all around, but that's a different debate), and basically scraped the bottom of the barrel to find warm bodies.

When that tactic proved mostly fruitless, they resorted to lengthening deployments, shortening leaves, refusing retirement, and so on.

As mentioned by one member earlier, another component of the problem has to do with the fact that we still have boatloads of men in Japan and Germany, as well as a number of other countries.

But more to the point, it has to do with the way we spend our defense budget.

tangent

A minor point, but one that's important to me, can we be honest for a second? Can we please take a cue from the name of the budget, and use a portion of those funds actually defending our country? If nothing else, can we change the name of the budget to 'the Offense budget' - please? I'm just yearning for a little honesty here...

/tangent

We might get by with the number of soldiers we have currently, if the reserves were properly funded, but they aren't. Every broken truck and rifle that comes back sits in storage because there's no money to fund repairs. Soldiers aren't getting the training they need to survive combat and accomplish mission objectives because all the money is spent throwing their brethren into a Middle Eastern meat grinder unprepared, while fattening corpulent corporate contractors who already have more money than God.

So what do we really have? We've got a force with the capability to be reasonably effective, but it's bogged down in a desert, and our equipment on the ground is breaking faster than we can repair it. Not only are we hamstringed when it comes to quantity of troops, but also quality. And to top it all off, fuel and water, including other less critical supplies, have been a problem from day one. A man would have to be insane to fight a war under these conditions.

Someone mentioned Sun Tzu earlier, and I'd like to point out this gem from his treatise (paraphrasing) - put yourself beyond defeat, and then find a path to victory. We are not beyond defeat, in fact we're closer to it than any time in recent history, so maybe we should do something about our own security before worrying about Iraq's security situation...

It's not as if there's a shortage of money, there's just a shortage of responsibility. Instead of spending our massive budget on tech proposals, support services at a 300% markup, and subsidies to politically-connected contractors, we could be fixing our broken hardware, training our men, and recruiting more of them (truth be told, throwing money at this particular problem won't make it go away - the only way to increase the size of a volunteer army is, unfortunately, to fight a noble and necessary war, or fight an ignoble and unnecessary war backed up with world-class propaganda).


We'd be a lot better off if corporate greed didn't dictate policy, but that's almost a crazy dream at this point - the infection is so deep I doubt if we'll ever be cured.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join