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.

 

Walk it off soldier you'll be ok

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 09:52 AM
link   
More lies and doublespeak from our President
and Pentagon commanders.....

www.inthenews.co.uk...$1058687.htm

www.salon.com...


I think this administration is making it clear that they
want to "win" the WOT no matter what the cost.


The problem here, however, is the lack of common sense
shown in the 2nd link.
One would not send broken equipment to a war, it would
fail without question.
Why would sending a broken soldier be any more effective ?



[edit on 12-3-2007 by Patriot36]




posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Not surprising, but still appalling. This is no way to win a war.

I say again, if we were serious about protecting the US from outside terrorist attack, which is the whole rationale for the WOT, we would first secure our borders and transportation corridors here at home.

Then we would retool the military to fight a guerilla war. Small, highly trained and specially equipped elite units conducting surgical strikes on validated and confirmed, not suspected, targets. High speed, low drag, and packing a wallop. In and out, get the job done, and come back home to prepare for the next strike.

While retooling our military here at home we would rebuild our HUMINT network with reliable assets on the ground in "hot spots" around the world to validate and confirm said targets.



Sun Tzu said;

The good fighters of old first put
themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then
waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.

There is no instance of a country having benefited
from prolonged warfare.

When you engage in actual fighting, if victory
is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and
their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town,
you will exhaust your strength.

Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources
of the State will not be equal to the strain.

Sun Tzu on The Art of War


President Bush's strategies are breaking all the rules of successful warfare. I must conclude his administration is either not up to the task, or has ulterior motives that are not in the best interests of our military nor the American people.

At this point, imo, our only hope is Congress will force him to stop using these destructive tactics and completely change course. I am not against fighting terror, I am against losing the fight due to inept, or ulteriorly motivated leadership. No less than the fate of the United States of America rests in restoring this balance.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   
President Bush's war is not a war on terror. IT IS A WAR ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THEIR INTELLIGENCE, FREEDOM, AND WAY OF LIFE. It is a war for the millionaire and billionaire friends of Bush to enrich their coffers at the expense of the common American and our poor Muslim friends abroad. American interests would be better protected by stationing the soldiers on our own borders to defend against the constant onslaught of terrorists, and foreign agents that stream across our undefended borders day and night.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
President Bush's war is not a war on terror. IT IS A WAR ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THEIR INTELLIGENCE, FREEDOM, AND WAY OF LIFE. It is a war for the millionaire and billionaire friends of Bush to enrich their coffers at the expense of the common American and our poor Muslim friends abroad. American interests would be better protected by stationing the soldiers on our own borders to defend against the constant onslaught of terrorists, and foreign agents that stream across our undefended borders day and night.


Accurate and succint summary but what can be done. They can't be voted out because voting is dead AND there is no option. Both parties are essentially the same.

I'm not even an American but I want to do something. It's a global problem.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising

Then we would retool the military to fight a guerilla war. Small, highly trained and specially equipped elite units conducting surgical strikes on validated and confirmed, not suspected, targets. High speed, low drag, and packing a wallop. In and out, get the job done, and come back home to prepare for the next strike.

While retooling our military here at home we would rebuild our HUMINT network with reliable assets on the ground in "hot spots" around the world to validate and confirm said targets.



The problem is that there is no such thing as 100 percent accuracy with intel. That's why suspected sites are raided, to confirm intel. Many times, info is time sensitive, and if you're trying to hit a HVT, you have to act on the best info you've got. If you wait till you have absolute proof before action, you will constantly miss opportunities, and be ineffective. That just goes with the Fog of War.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising


I must conclude his administration is either not up to the task, or has ulterior motives that are not in the best interests of our military nor the American people.




this newest twist of sending in triage troops
makes my deep dark diabolical notions something that might actually have substance to them...

as in 'What If' there's a sinister scheme that involves a great massacre
of troops in Iraq, [to muster support & renewed determination on WOT]
The Cover-Story of logistics and the re-emphasis of mission
might sound reasonable as to the build up of forces around Baghdad...
the delayed 'rotations' out of that theater,
the repositioning of support troops into the Baghdad/GreenZone areas,
the reinforcements (to Iraq) by other than front line fighters,

It would be interesting to track the movements & deployment
of the 'independent contractor' ~ security & bodyguards ~
in contrast to the US military personnel there in Baghdad/green-zone,

as in ?Are these civilians also increasing in concentration?
Or are these independent security forces (who only generate $$ for Employers cut- -If Alive!) are being given assignments away from the areas where GIs (wounded & elsewise) are being clustered...???

i'm getting nervous, about what may be setting-up over there in Iraq







[edit on 12-3-2007 by St Udio]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   
This is outrageous. They can't find enough troops for the surge, so they are redeploying injured soldiers. They altered medical profiles and declare them fit for duty without an exam.


As the military scrambles to pour more soldiers into Iraq, a unit of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Benning, Ga., is deploying troops with serious injuries and other medical problems, including GIs who doctors have said are medically unfit for battle. Some are too injured to wear their body armor, according to medical records.



Jenkins and other soldiers claim that the division and brigade surgeons summarily downgraded soldiers' profiles, without even a medical exam, in order to deploy them to Iraq.

www.salon.com...

I just heard this on the radio and couldn't believe my ears.

This war has gone on for too long.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join