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.

 

At White House, a Second Look at Iraq Troop Cuts

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   

At White House, a Second Look at Iraq Troop Cuts


www.nytimes.com

WASHINGTON — Four months after announcing troop reductions in Iraq, President Bush is now sending signals that the cuts may not continue past this summer, a development likely to infuriate Democrats and renew concerns among military planners about strains on the force.

Mr. Bush has made no decisions on troop reductions to follow those he announced last September. But White House officials said Mr. Bush had been taking the opportunity, as he did in Monday’s State of the Union address, to prepare Americans for the possibility that, when he leaves office a year from now, the military presence in Iraq will be just as large as it was a year ago, or even slightly larger.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Mr. Bush wanted to tamp down criticism that a large, sustained presence in Iraq would harm the overall health of the military — a view held not only by Democrats, but by some members of his own Joint Chiefs of Staff.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Will these poor people ever come home ? The puppet strings are very taunt .

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
whoh hold on a minute,arnt we still in the "surge" phase?,so what our dear friend is saying is that there isnt going to be a reduction in the surge?....

...that would mean,as i always suspected, it never was a surge,it was a planned,disguised permenant increase in troops and once again the american public has been lied to.




posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Thats what it's looking like . I don't think they care if they ever come home. We should draft the bush kids. Send them to die .



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by oLDWoRLDDiSoRDeR
We should draft the bush kids. Send them to die .


And just what would that accomplish? Nothing.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by oLDWoRLDDiSoRDeR

At White House, a Second Look at Iraq Troop Cuts



Mr. Bush has made no decisions on troop reductions to follow those he announced last September. But White House officials said Mr. Bush had been taking the opportunity, as he did in Monday’s State of the Union address, to prepare Americans for the possibility that, when he leaves office a year from now, the military presence in Iraq will be just as large as it was a year ago, or even slightly larger.

Huh.

And right there - in the State of the Union that President Bush delivered and that these guys reference - the President says "...American troops are shifting from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and, eventually, to a protective overwatch mission. As part of this transition, one Army brigade combat team and one Marine Expeditionary Unit have already come home and will not be replaced. In the coming months, four additional brigades and two Marine battalions will follow suit. Taken together, this means more than 20,000 of our troops are coming home..."

So - by bringing home troops - we're going ot have a presence just as large as a year ago? How very odd. The NY Times (home of journalists like Judith Miller - who made up their stories for the paper) must be using that 'new math.'

Especially since troop levels are epected to be 138,000 in a few months, and 100,000 by the end of the year ... significantly lower than the 170,000 peak from October last year.

It's the weirdest thing; troop levels for the last quarter (October: 170,000, November, 160,000, December, 156,000) continue to decline.

Yeah ...

Your pal,
Meat.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I don't think they'll ever come home. We have permanent stations in Iraq now... and there will always be soldiers to fill the ranks.

I think America has lost it's democratic ability to control itself. We have no say what our military does anymore. Although the majority of Americans want to be out of Iraq, there are still a stubborn and ignorant minority refusing to acknowledge the democratic opinion. Democrats AND Republicans have ignored the will to end the war and have tricked the ordinary laymen (political sheep) that there is no way out of Iraq and we just need to stick around indefinitely.

As long as there are political talking heads running about echoing the White houses empty rhetoric for war... the charade of this 'republic' will continue.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
I think America has lost it's democratic ability to control itself. We have no say what our military does anymore.


Quite true, and unfortunately this goes much further!

In the instance of Iraq, there was an exclusive club among the Bush's inner circle, who designed this war because they liked to think they are talented geopolitical masters, whereas in fact they turned out a bunch of amateurs. It vexes me to no end that none of these people are being held accountable for what they did to our country as well as Iraq.

But there is more: the open borders policy which apparently continues is opposed by Americans, just look at any poll. However, little to nothing is being done to quell illegal immigration. Speak of national security when your borders have more holes than a loaf of Swiss cheese in a rat cage!

And yet most people don't get excited or enraged when confronting these facts. We are slipping into the Age of Decadent Barbarsim.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


It actually would do a whole lot. Bushie would think twice before sending other sons and daughters off to war.

Why not draft the Cheney's and all of Bush's cronies kids as well and while we're at it why don't we send the politicians with them?

They seem pretty willing to send other people's children to war, but don't like to see their own suffer.

The 'surge' was never meant as a temporary fix as a previous poster mentioned; the intention was and still is to keep our soldiers there as long as possible.

Bushie is even trying to lock the next President into keeping our soldiers in Iraq till 2012 through a legally binding contract.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls
It actually would do a whole lot. Bushie would think twice before sending other sons and daughters off to war.

Why not draft the Cheney's and all of Bush's cronies kids as well and while we're at it why don't we send the politicians with them?

They seem pretty willing to send other people's children to war, but don't like to see their own suffer.


So, based on that line of thinking, Clinton's daughter Chelsea should have been in the military during Operation Allied Force, when the US was bombing Yugoslavia? Or maybe Operation Desert Fox, when we bombed Iraq to try to institute a "regime change?"



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Sure why not.

The Clintons are no better than the Bush family, but they haven't been in control of the country for a while now...Although Hillary is getting rather close. Scary ain't it
?

You have to understand I dislike Democrats and Republicans, but recently the Republicans have been the ones war mongering and creating a sense of fear in the population.

The Democrats are at fault because they don't do what they say they're going to. I applaud the Republicans for actually doing what they say they're going to, as atrocious as it may be.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
So, based on that line of thinking, Clinton's daughter Chelsea should have been in the military during Operation Allied Force, when the US was bombing Yugoslavia? Or maybe Operation Desert Fox, when we bombed Iraq to try to institute a "regime change?"



Absolutely! There have been analyses (on www.stratfor.com in particular, if memory serves me right) about the effect of the exitense of a warrior class in the United States, on the society at large. We are not very adverse to waging wars in part due to the fact that a limited group of people will absorb the grief and physical damage. If there were a draft, the war in Iraq would have never happened.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Never gonna happen. Republican, Democrat, whatever. Their kids aren't going to be fighting, unless they actually go out and look for it. I think the last one that was in the military and fighting was one of FDRs kids, who was in the Marine Raiders, during WW2.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
I think America has lost it's democratic ability to control itself. We have no say what our military does anymore.


Quite true, and unfortunately this goes much further!

Beg to differ.

America is a republic, not a democracy.

Therefore, it can't go 'much further.'

Your pal,
Meat.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls
Why not draft the Cheney's and all of Bush's cronies kids as well and while we're at it why don't we send the politicians with them?

Because the United States currently doesn't have a draft. We have the strongest, bravest, best all-volunteer military in the world.

And I'd much rather have someone protecting us who wants to serve than have someone who doesn't.


The 'surge' was never meant as a temporary fix as a previous poster mentioned; the intention was and still is to keep our soldiers there as long as possible.

Uh...yeah, it actually was. And it worked. And it's over. And more and more of our soldiers are coming home every month. The numbers don't lie.


Bushie is even trying to lock the next President into keeping our soldiers in Iraq till 2012 through a legally binding contract.

Reeeeeeally. A "legally binding contract, eh?


That's pretty damned funny!

Your pal,
Meat.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmmeat
Because the United States currently doesn't have a draft. We have the strongest, bravest, best all-volunteer military in the world.


That's relative.



And I'd much rather have someone protecting us who wants to serve than have someone who doesn't.


Agreed.



Uh...yeah, it actually was. And it worked. And it's over. And more and more of our soldiers are coming home every month. The numbers don't lie.


So if the surge is working so well why are we there still? Bush said 'Mission Accomplished' several years ago, yet our soldiers aren't home yet.

Do you see an inherent flaw in that statement?



Reeeeeeally. A "legally binding contract, eh?


That's pretty damned funny!


Its not funny actually because its true...At least he is trying to. That means if and when Hillary (or a democrat) is elected [they] can save face and say, "well you know the law states that we must stay in Iraq for X amount of years."

Bush should not bind next President's hands - Iraq war

From the thread's source:


President George W. Bush is discussing a new agreement with Baghdad that would govern the deployment of American troops in Iraq.
...
The White House and the Iraqi government decided in December to pursue the pact as a way to define long-term relations between the two countries, including the legal status of American military forces in Iraq.
...
Formal negotiations won't start until February, and few details are known, but already the two sides are laying down markers. The Iraqi defense minister, Abdul Qadir - apparently tone-deaf to the American political debate - told The New York Times' Thom Shanker that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012 or be able to defend its own borders from external threat at least until 2018.
...
That is far too long for most Americans, but not for Bush, who is quite comfortable leaving American troops fighting in Iraq for another decade.



Comments?



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls

Originally posted by mmmeat
Because the United States currently doesn't have a draft. We have the strongest, bravest, best all-volunteer military in the world.

That's relative.

Not at all. It's fact.




Uh...yeah, it actually was. And it worked. And it's over. And more and more of our soldiers are coming home every month. The numbers don't lie.


So if the surge is working so well why are we there still? Bush said 'Mission Accomplished' several years ago, yet our soldiers aren't home yet.

Do you see an inherent flaw in that statement?

Nope. No inherent flaw at all.

The surge did work, which has allowed for many of our troops to stand down and come home or move on to other projects.

And "Mission Accomplished" was absolutely true; Saddam was deposed. That was the initial mission.




Reeeeeeally. A "legally binding contract, eh?


That's pretty damned funny!


Its not funny actually because its true...At least he is trying to. That means if and when Hillary (or a democrat) is elected [they] can save face and say, "well you know the law states that we must stay in Iraq for X amount of years."

Actually, it IS funny. Damned funny! Laugh out loud, roll on the floor, point and laaaaaugh and laaaaaugh and laaaaaaugh funny.

Countries don't make 'legally binding contracts' with other countries.

Okay, maybe it's just me...but I do find it funny when I read posts that say things that are just patently not true as if it's an indisputable fact. It shows a certain amount of naivete and kind of negates the whole argument in my mind.

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with history. I don't mean that to be insulting, but you need to do some research as to what happened AFTER World War II. Even better: research how many Americans were killed in Italy AFTER it surrendered and how many Americans were killed in Italy AFTER Germany surrendered. At the end of WWII we didn't just pack up and come home, we had an occupation force that lasted for years and suffered great losses. I'm singling out Italy because it wasn't as as volatile as Germany, and is significantly less fractious than Iraq.

Your pal,
Meat.

[edit on 30-1-2008 by mmmeat]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mmmeat
 


People don't remember that. They think that after WW2, all troops went home the next day.

You know that guys that were stationed in Berlin, up until the fall of the Berlin Wall, were given the Occupation Medal?

I think the US Army was still in Germany until the 1920's after the First World War. Maybe 1929-ish?



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
People don't remember that. They think that after WW2, all troops went home the next day.

There's a reason they were called the Greatest Generation.

We - the United States - lost more American soldiers in 'peacetime' post-WWII Italy than ALL casualties on ALL sides in Iraq (using the 'real' numbers rather than the imaginary numbers recently posted on ATS).

The surge worked. The soldiers are coming home. We'll only have 100,000 in Iraq by the end of the year; 70,000 less than our all-time high.

THAT'S the 'second look at Iraq troop cuts.'

Your pal,
Meat.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join