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.

 

A sad possibility about the war in Iraq.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 10:56 PM
link   
A sad thought just occured to me. I was just wondering about the war in Iraq, and the not so great outcome so far. Then I remebered an article on budget problems the military is currently having. The two thoughts about budget and the loses in Iraq crossed. From this I remebered a military game I play on the PC, medieval total war. Most of you most likly haven't played the game but, one part of it is to manage your money between your forces and what not. I always end up with too much military expences, due to the cost of sustaing all my units.(They have a yearly fee in the game/maintenance costs). To solve this problem, I simply send my out of date/useless troops in to hopless battle so they get killed thus, I don't have to pay for them anymore. What if that is what Bush is doing. Sending all these forces in Iraq half heartedly to make way to a better military. This is just another theory to consider but, here on ATS we always talk about black projects excetra, what if Bush or the heads of the military, are making room for a new more advanced army. Just a thought.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by halfmask]




posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Interesting thoughts...



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Considering the US is not "weed-whacking" but increasing its force size this is pretty poorly thought out.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreiMaurer
Considering the US is not "weed-whacking" but increasing its force size this is pretty poorly thought out.
They are sending over forces that are already trained. They are not increasing the forces size, they are simply moving more forces too Iraq. As in poorly thought out, a admit I do not have much info on the subject but, I still wanted to point this out as a possiblity.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfmask
..... What if that is what Bush is doing. Sending all these forces in Iraq half heartedly to make way to a better military. This is just another theory to consider but, here on ATS we always talk about black projects excetra, what if Bush or the heads of the military, are making room for a new more advanced army. Just a thought.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by halfmask]


There's one big obstacle to this theory. Bush is too dumb to think up scheme like this.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfmask
A sad thought just occured to me. I was just wondering about the war in Iraq, and the not so great outcome so far. Then I remebered an article on budget problems the military is currently having. The two thoughts about budget and the loses in Iraq crossed. From this I remebered a military game I play on the PC, medieval total war. Most of you most likly haven't played the game but, one part of it is to manage your money between your forces and what not. I always end up with too much military expences, due to the cost of sustaing all my units.(They have a yearly fee in the game/maintenance costs). To solve this problem, I simply send my out of date/useless troops in to hopless battle so they get killed thus, I don't have to pay for them anymore. What if that is what Bush is doing. Sending all these forces in Iraq half heartedly to make way to a better military. This is just another theory to consider but, here on ATS we always talk about black projects excetra, what if Bush or the heads of the military, are making room for a new more advanced army. Just a thought.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by halfmask]


There's a major flaw to your thinking. The US military is mainly losing MEN, not tanks, jets, etc etc.

So unless Bush is trying to replace all of our dead marines with robotic soldiers for a more "advanced" army, you need to seriously reconsider your position.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShooterSix

Originally posted by halfmask
.........

[edit on 26-1-2007 by halfmask]


There's a major flaw to your thinking. The US military is mainly losing MEN, not tanks, jets, etc etc.

So unless Bush is trying to replace all of our dead marines with robotic soldiers for a more "advanced" army, you need to seriously reconsider your position.

He still has to pay the soldiers, unless they come back dead. Don't alot of the younger soldiers get education grants in the U.S.? He wont have to pay those either.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   
if i heard everyone tripped over the same stone not twice but thrice in the winds of glory would i ever stop to think about how they are going to pay this one off. i am driving behind a china man the other day, he dont know, so i say "the best price". and the n the other day i was holding to kepts in the foreign traded species i brought back roamed the country side, i tamed them, you live withem, and you buy my spice



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join