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.

 

British Official: Troops in Iraq til 2007

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 04:23 PM
link   
With the Mars distractions and all....

it's not too interesting to hear
last nights news blurb, on radio, announcing
that US Military retirements and muster-outs
are being SUSPENDED......??

Together with this admission- - at least by our ally,
that operations are planned to continue.until '07....

(regardless of the Transitional Iraqi Government taking control this summer )

I may have been born at Night....but, not Last Night!
all the caveats are set...there is no forces extraction
planned/expected by this administration--->

the Americans are in Iraq, Middle East & Afghanistan until the lights-go-out.........we will all have to adjust....

oh the link:

truthout.org...

(from a nytimes pub)




posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 06:15 PM
link   
RiffRaff....

You mentioned:

"that US Military retirements and muster-outs
are being SUSPENDED......??"


Uh, yes....its called the 'Stop-Loss' Program and the Army is expanding on it. In such, it will only effect roughly 7,000 active duty servicemen/soldiers that have and are deployed. With approxly. 150,000 US troops in Iraq, roughly 7,000 is an issue?


You further mentioned:

"Together with this admission- - at least by our ally,
that operations are planned to continue.until '07....I may have been born at Night....but, not Last Night!
all the caveats are set...there is no forces extraction
planned/expected by this administration..."



News flash....the Bush Administration has repeatedly said that US tropps will be in Iraq as long as necessary.
Example:
Last June, Paul Wolfowitz mentioned it could be as long as 10 years.
Link:
www.usatoday.com...

With such an example, why the issue of "force extraction?" If this deployment last for 10 years, there will be no need to mention the current Bush Administration, being that even with a second term, they will not be in office when such a deployment ends.

...again, I see no relative issue with this when one applies that the US is currently still in Germany and Japan....thats some 55+/- years ago?


Btw, I want our troops home and out of harms way as much as the next person.




regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Ahh... and I remember the days before the war when posting about a planned two year occupation were laughed off the board.. changed days eh? *goes all misty eyed*



posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 10:08 AM
link   
belated reply;

the remark about 'caveats' was to include the 10 year,
extended mission, scheme....

the jist of the post, was to point out the mixed messages being issued from the administration...

#1::the war on terror, may be a generation long....
aboard carrier, upon landing, sign: Mission Accomplished

#2::USA pushing forward for Iraq, for self gov. in June 04... 'stop loss' put in place, at this time->extending all troops tour of duty (when presumably 'we' are in process of winding-down)

#3::new activations of stateside units, being sent to Iraq...while present troops are locked in beyond expected rotations, enlistments...(appears a Build-Up is underway)

~~+~~

it seems the administrations policy is ever changing,
no WMDs found->Saddam,bathists,sons & chain ofcommand are no longer->
the 130-150 thousand troops it took to accomplish the regime change....must now remain and be bolstered with more troops (to help protect the troops??there already?)

sir, the Problem-Reaction-Solution sequence is being shaped, manipulated, reshaped....even under the large umbrella of A War Unlike Other Wars...the War on Terror,
the Axis of Evil....

the recent 'submissions' by libya & syria & iran...on the face of american strength/forcefullness-> will only reinforce the administrations' Bush Policy and lead to what??
~*~
in a quandry....just fishing for viewpoints... eom



posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 10:16 AM
link   
PS:

in 1967, the Army, Flagged all Orders , so as to send troops with as little as 6 months remaining...to VietNam,
(right before TET no less)....does this sound a little like this 'stop loss' of today???

is there a Tet counterpart in this timeline of 2004??



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join