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.

 

Iraq troop surge is actually double the numbers!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:04 AM
link   
This just proves that bush is about to invade iran.Total troops going to iraq may well be 40,000 and not 20,000.
Additional 20,000 troops would be support personal for the 21,000 troops which will be going

www.cnn.com...
www.truthdig.com...
www.thehill.com...
www.military.com...

coupled with the second aircraft carrier uss stennis and amphbious assault ship bataan its safe to say We are goning for IRAN in march-april 2007.

[edit on 2-2-2007 by manchurian_candidate]

[edit on 2-2-2007 by manchurian_candidate]




posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:26 AM
link   
While this does give evidence of an Iranian invasion, it is not proof.
Why?
Bush promised 21,500 combat troops, anyone with any military background knows that combat troops (Infantry, Armor, Field Artillery) require support troops (Finance, transportation, quartermaster etc), therefore it does not necessarily mean an Iranian invasion



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:40 AM
link   
I agree, 20k troops implies just that, 20k troops. Every trooper is going to have some support staff associated with them.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:41 AM
link   
what a way to manipulate the American people. i don't necessarily see this as proof that we are going to Iran but its looking more and more likely.

It looks like dubya is trying to discreetly continue his own agenda, but not doing a very good job at it. The extra troops are kind of a "Oh, and by the way..."

He got 21,500 troops, but noooo, he always needs more.

[edit on 2/2/2007 by kaptain disfunct]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Bush isn't going to iran without express authorization from congress. He got it for afghanistan, and he got it for iraq. And that was when he had tremendous public support. Who knows what the administration will say between now and then, but if they don't convince the democrat congress to approve action, he's not going to do it.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:55 AM
link   
i'd figure that the 'Surge' increase need of 20-24,000 troops,
was the forces needed to successfully accomplish the newly defined objective...

but one has to understand that this number accounts for the manpower needed for the primary 'shift' only.

...you all know there are 2 other 'shifts' in a 24 hour day -> 3 'shifts' of 8 hours each is the bottom line ->

So, almost magically, the Surge of 24,000, actually turns into a troop increase of 24K X3= 72,000 'front-line troops'
and that many more 'rear eschelon', support personnel

& lets say that rounds out to 144,000 fresh troops rotated into Iraq !!

this was covered weeks ago in another thread

~~~~~~

there is no need to invade Iran, their Basij -or- Bassij
wing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard army will surge into Iraq
to attack the Great Satans troops.
A physical Invasion of Iran would be next to impossible with less than a million man army in the theater.


[edit on 2-2-2007 by St Udio]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 02:18 AM
link   


Bush isn't going to iran without express authorization from congress. He got it for afghanistan, and he got it for iraq.

Nygdan, you know he can do it without the approval of congress. But not for too long, only for 90 days, after that they can spin it to say that democrats don't support the troops or that kind of BS.

I hope he don't get his way and if he does, generals get him out by force if necessary and then get new elections.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo


Bush isn't going to iran without express authorization from congress. He got it for afghanistan, and he got it for iraq.

Nygdan, you know he can do it without the approval of congress. But not for too long, only for 90 days, after that they can spin it to say that democrats don't support the troops or that kind of BS.

I hope he don't get his way and if he does, generals get him out by force if necessary and then get new elections.

lmao bush never authorized the iraq war from congress.It is an illegal war.plz check webistes like prisonplanet.com
there will be another gulf of toieken incient and war with iran would commence.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by manchurian_candidate
lmao bush never authorized the iraq war from congress.It is an illegal war.plz check webistes like prisonplanet.com
there will be another gulf of toieken incient and war with iran would commence.


Yeah, you hit the nail on the head there.


Senate Approves Iraq War Resolution

If you get all of your "news" from a source like prison planet I see why you would think so though. And as a matter of fact, the 2003 Iraq war had more congressional support than did Gulf War 1. Its there in the same article.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
i'd figure that the 'Surge' increase need of 20-24,000 troops,
was the forces needed to successfully accomplish the newly defined objective...

but one has to understand that this number accounts for the manpower needed for the primary 'shift' only.

...you all know there are 2 other 'shifts' in a 24 hour day -> 3 'shifts' of 8 hours each is the bottom line ->

So, almost magically, the Surge of 24,000, actually turns into a troop increase of 24K X3= 72,000 'front-line troops'
and that many more 'rear eschelon', support personnel

& lets say that rounds out to 144,000 fresh troops rotated into Iraq !!

this was covered weeks ago in another thread


[edit on 2-2-2007 by St Udio]



How on Earth are you arriving at this figure? Troop size isn't based upon shifts in a day, and they work longer than 8 hr days as well, by the way. The only people working shifts are the staff folks(and they typically work 12-14hr shifts, and sometimes longer i.e. 18-20hr shifts). The folks out doing patrols, are on shifts. They're out as long as the mission takes, then they come back and get some rest. A guy I worked with was in a 72 hour firefight in Afghanistan- and by this I mean they were shooting at bad guys to stay alive, for 72hrs.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Getting your news from Prisonplanet is like getting your daily news from Steven Colbert, its switched around to fit there own agendas.

Wars in Afganistan and Iraq wre authorized by nearly every Senator at the time and also the likes of Hiliary Clinton (who now trying to get herself out of it), John Edwards (Renounced), John Kennedy (Renounced) and various other Senators who supported it while the wars were popular.

Now for political gain they change there minds go figure!!!


I pray for George Bush to finally get out of the White House wihtout having a nervous break down or a heart attack.

give the country to the Democrats!

So now I can come out and bitch about the war going on and whatever else I can think of.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   
The astounding fact is that most if not all the politicians (and others) are the very same folks who last year cried "we need more troops" was'nt that the main beef about Rumsfeld's operation of the war?

Now that more troops are on the way thats a problem to those that asked for them?

Ah politics

[edit on 4-2-2007 by Phoenix]



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   
AHAHAHHAH good point....

They always flip flop John Kerry proved that well!



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   
First of all I want to say the term flip lopper is a joke. A year is a long time. Sometimes things happen in a year where someone needs to go ahead and change up their plans. In a war like Iraq plans can change daily. At times one thing may look like a good idea and at other times things need to change. Flip flopping is a term the news made up to confuse people. It's not always a bad thing. I dunno, maybe some of you still think the same things you thought when you were 14 years old. Lets go for progression people.

Styki



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Styki
First of all I want to say the term flip lopper is a joke. A year is a long time. Sometimes things happen in a year where someone needs to go ahead and change up their plans. In a war like Iraq plans can change daily. At times one thing may look like a good idea and at other times things need to change. Flip flopping is a term the news made up to confuse people. It's not always a bad thing. I dunno, maybe some of you still think the same things you thought when you were 14 years old. Lets go for progression people.

Styki


So you dont think that those who approved the war in the senate and house and are now reversing their positions are not exploiting any of this for political gains? Please, they look at poll numbers too. I cant say I like that kind of activity but I would also say they would be dumb not to take advantage of the changing political makeup of the US.

The fact is, that we are in Iraq and that we need to give the Generals what they need to finish what they started, reguardless of what political feelings an individual may have. It will only get worse if we just abandon the situation as a lost cause and at just leave Iraq, most notably the Sunni Triangle, the most troublesome and active areas where insurgents reside. The least we can do for the Iraqis is leave them with a good starting point to take the country in whatever direction they choose.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   
More troops might of made a difference years ago, when there was a slim chance of containing the factioning parties..
but its just too out of control now.....
More troops wont do squat, and it saddens me to see that some people arent going to realise this until the casualty list grows in size, and more coffins come home.

But I saw on TV, A government official saying that 20k troops doesnt mean 20k troops on the ground.
It means a few thousand in transit, some in backup, and some on the field.

but now i see a government official saying 20k actually means 50k or what ever.

This is a total F'UP!
FUBAR!

And some of you seem to be following this illegial war hook line and sinker.

and that is EXACTLY WHAT IT IS! Congress approving of war, does not make it LEGAL on the international stage.
Hitlers GOVERNMENT approved his wars... but we declared that ILLEGIAL didnt we..

Blind patriotism is no longer an excuse for sheer stupidity, gullability or ignorance.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
More troops might of made a difference years ago, when there was a slim chance of containing the factioning parties..
but its just too out of control now.....
More troops wont do squat, and it saddens me to see that some people arent going to realise this until the casualty list grows in size, and more coffins come home.

But I saw on TV, A government official saying that 20k troops doesnt mean 20k troops on the ground.
It means a few thousand in transit, some in backup, and some on the field.

but now i see a government official saying 20k actually means 50k or what ever.

This is a total F'UP!
FUBAR!

And some of you seem to be following this illegial war hook line and sinker.

and that is EXACTLY WHAT IT IS! Congress approving of war, does not make it LEGAL on the international stage.
Hitlers GOVERNMENT approved his wars... but we declared that ILLEGIAL didnt we..

Blind patriotism is no longer an excuse for sheer stupidity, gullability or ignorance.


I agree that we should have gone with the Generals and military advisors advice they had given us before hand, and used more troops initially. Maybe things would have gone better, but nothing is certain. I think that if this war was going well there wouldnt be near the outcry.

What 20k troops means is probably 5000 combat troops and 15000 support troops(logistics, artillery, medical staff ect.) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think thats how it works.

We can debate legality of the Iraq War all the live long day, but no one will get anywhere becasue no one can see past personal feelings. Everyone has become so politically polarized from each other, were fighting eachother rather than working together to fix a bad situation. At this point Republicans and Democrats both fail to grasp that notion, using it instead to politically exploit each other, and we see the results, a politically polarized US population who are at each others throats.

My point is that both sides dont seem to care to find a solution they just want to get their own way.




[edit on 2/5/2007 by ludaChris]



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I can not stand the devastation in Iraq and the toll on the death, is hard to imagine a nation that has endure so much.

I am even starting to think that if played right perhaps a surge will help stop the massacre going on in Iraq.

But so far the surge is just to control Baghdad while the rest of the nation is still in chaos.

The killings has to stop. too many of our helicopters been targeted.

Lets just divide the darn country and built a fence between them.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join