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.

 

Opinions wanted...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2003 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Hi all,
First off, wanted to say this message board rocks, the people and the variety of opinion are great, (first time poster, so go easy on me) : )

I first would like to question something that came to mind. Why are there so many troops being sent to the Middle East (obviously for war)?. I dont know how large the military is (troop numbers), but it makes me wonder if the US is not leaving a wide invitation for an attack on the homeland again. the government could easily use the excuse that there werent enough soldiers to defend (depending on how many troops there are in the first place.) Comments, thoughts, general criticism greately appreciated.




posted on Jan, 22 2003 @ 08:08 AM
link   
The build up is a show of strength theoretically designed to make saddam step down, or at least thats what Blair is claiming.

As for an attack on the US, no invasive force is considering attacking america at the moment, that would be the only reason one would require massive numbers of ground troops...

In fact, despite the wonderfull amount of noise coming out of the white house conserning national security, I don't believe a single country has threatened to attack the US

If you are attacked during this war it'll most probably be a small terrorist group. And theres really not much a few tanks and an air craft carrier could do about that.



posted on Jan, 22 2003 @ 08:14 AM
link   
I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant to say, an attack in general, whether it be 'terrorist' or otherwise. Hope that helps clear it up



posted on Jan, 22 2003 @ 08:18 AM
link   
thats fine.
well for my 2c's
no.

your vulnerable to a terrorist attack regardless of the number of troops you have in the US
and no country is likely to invade you which would be the only reason you might keep large numbers of ground troops in your country.

So no.
I don't think your opening your self up to attack.



posted on Jan, 22 2003 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grommer

I dont know how large the military is (troop numbers), but it makes me wonder if the US is not leaving a wide invitation for an attack on the homeland again.



First, wellcome on ATS.


And for your question, there is +/- 120.000 US troops in the M.E, + some British troops and some NATO nation warship in the Gulf.



posted on Jan, 22 2003 @ 08:31 AM
link   
If you are attacked during this war it'll most probably be a small terrorist group.

AND THIS IS THE POINT!!

That is what THEY set up. These are their tricks. And then they have 'reasons' to do the things they want to do! With their people behind them!



posted on Jan, 22 2003 @ 08:35 AM
link   
great!
er...
who the hell are "they"



posted on Jan, 22 2003 @ 08:41 AM
link   
There will be 200,000 US personel and around 30,000 GB personel.Why?

Well not all are ground troops.This includes Navy,Airforce,and the vast logistical team behind the troops but this is still a large number of troops for a supposed liberation when you consider what the airforce will do to the command structure first and the technical superiority of US/UK forces.

1/Locals may not wish to be liberated.

2/Suburben warfare(street fighting)in Baghdad.

3/No commander likes to go in with not enough forces.

4/Occupation maybe needed.

5/Bodyguards for Oil company personel.
(joke)

Any or all of these may be reasons.I'm sure others could add more.

Is the US weaker?Technically Yes but for all intents and purposes No as Lupe said.However the USA and UK are both more likely to be attacked at home during a Gulf conflict.There is no hard and fast rule that says if you attack a country it will not attack you back.
It is well to remember that the cold war didn't become hot because of Mutually Assured Destruction.Weapons of Mass Destruction were a deterent not an offensive weapon.The threat of use stopped beligerent countries invading others.



posted on Jan, 22 2003 @ 08:45 AM
link   
terrorists could attack us whether those troops were sitting in their bases here or sittin in bases in the middle east, dont matter

there's nobody that could really invade us, everybody except Canada and Mexico has to cross an ocean of some sort to get to us, and nobody (except us) has an adaquate capability to do that and launch an invasion on the scale needed

I guess Canada COULD invade, but it would be really friggin pointless, they'd get kinda far in (surprise, who in the hell would expect Canada to invade the US) but we'd kick the # out of them after we got over the surprise, and it'd be retarded, like shootin urself in the balls (yes i said balls)



posted on Jan, 22 2003 @ 11:10 AM
link   
will not stop a terrorist attack....

There are only so many troops sent as an "or else" statement... No, you don't send this many troops unless you plan to USE them... It's simple economics....

As for us getting "invaded", not too worried about that. Any force large enough to invade would be spotted well before hitting our shores, and taken out with the military that is stationed here, skeletal crew or not...it will be plenty. Missiles would send them to Davy Jones' locker before they even saw the shoreline...

[Edited on 22-1-2003 by Gazrok]



posted on Jan, 22 2003 @ 12:11 PM
link   
"And for your question, there is +/- 120.000 US troops in the M.E, + some British troops and some NATO nation warship in the Gulf."

U_P what are you saying "+some british troops"? This is a quarter of our army which is nothing to sniff at. Our Troops are possibly the best in the world even if they are n`t the best supplied. It shows an intent on our part that this is no game. There is a serious intention to show the world we mean business, America could depoly half a million men and people would still not take it serioulsy. The British governments commitment shows that this goes beyond a diplomatic show of force and should also tell the rest of the world that Un veto or not we are the only ones who can stop the americans if we wish. A heavy commitment by the UK is a clever move as if we pull out it shows that there really is no support in the international community forsuch action. The US needs its allies, and the moral support they bring, a veto by the French in the UN secutity council means very little if the Uk still support the US. But if the UK pulls its support from under the feet of the americans it means much much more



posted on Jan, 22 2003 @ 12:17 PM
link   
The large number of troops is a principle of WAR....MOUSE MASS.

As for risking an attack back in the USA, our troops leaving the homeland has nothing to do with an attack in the USA. Terrorists attack civilians anywhere because they are wimpy thugs, so our military is not part of the equation until after the fact.

Our military is used to hunt down their leadership and our CIA/FBI hunt down the individual terrorists around the world.



posted on Jan, 22 2003 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Cassini:

Thank You, I for one wish to thank you and the U.K. Government for their support; Political and Military. And I do agree with you that the U.K. Forces are very well trained and disciplined. We (U.S.) need and request our oldest and most loyal ally to assist, temper and support us in this coming conflict. Again, thank you.

USAFSS-SP



posted on Jan, 22 2003 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grommer


I dont know how large the military is (troop numbers),


According to the DoD active military personel as of nov, 27 2002, were 1,453,889. if you go to WWW.pentagon.gov it basically has everything you could ever want to know about our armed services, except of course for the things we talk about that are hush hush.

God bless our men and women in uniform.

[Edited on 1/22/2003 by AegisFang]




top topics



 
0

log in

join