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.

 

Okay Now what?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Fallujah has not yet fallen to complete occupation forces control and already 7 more cities fall to insurgents either fully or partially, so what have we done. When the terrorists/insurgents where in Fallujah they were somewhat contained, yes they had a reach all over with isolated or limited multiple attacks but nothing like it is now, so what do we do now we take their strong hold and they take 7 new ones, seems like its worse rather than better.

The only advantage I see is that their forces are spread thinner over a larger area, ooohhhh wait but when you buy this set of knives you get a bonus set, yes thats right civilians are falling into the ranks in most of these cities. People who hadn;t joined till their cities where infiltrated so now there was just a large jump in the ranks on thier side.

I can only conclud we didnt break them by destroying the hive we just mixed up the swarm to a frency and let them get away , its about to get dirty dirty boys and girls we either must send more troops, or secure our ranks in file and let them come to us and hope we can take them on as they come. We can;t go after them in every city cause thats what they want break the ranks and attack us in our smaller groups.......This sucks damned if you do damned if you dont , but do you want it to be the loss of present forces on a larger scale or loss of our forces in a smaller scale cause we sent more troops in , people die either way but which is the lesser evil.




posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Will someone please tell me how we are suppose to cover so much area with so little man power, the Iraqi regulars are not yet reliable. I heard stories of a unit deserting or not reporting for duty, were stuck in the middle of a crap storm and right now the unbrella that our boys have has holes in it. How many troops do we have left over there right now anyway , is not our death toll up to almost 2,000 thats alot of lost man power and equipt. Can wel resupply and reman in time to beat the militants recovery period , as soon as they are organized they have the advantage cause there goods and manpower come from their home turf.
Ours has to be shipped in. can we do it fast enough or not?



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:56 PM
link   
It's called the draft!



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by AkulA
It's called the draft!




we have troops but are we going to send them and keep our smaller reserves here to train people drafted or are we going to leave those guys to depend on people who sometimes dont show up for work , or have objectives seperate from the primary US mission



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 11:08 PM
link   
What 7 other cities have fallen?

Links please.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
What 7 other cities have fallen?

Links please.


I have found it to be six not seven sorry all of them go in NE direction from Fallujah, North Bagdad is under attack, KIRKUK under seige mainly controlled by rebels citizens and terrorists,BAQUBA under seige by terrorists, TAKRIT under seige by terrorist,MOSUL under siege by terrorists,
I think the last one is RAMADI or SAMARRA under seige by terrorists



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 11:25 PM
link   
I heard on MSNBC earlier today that 20-30,000 more troops are supposed to be sent within the next two months.
Something about the "baloon" Falleujah would either "burst" when it was attacked or bubble out. I guess it "bubbled" out so now I'm sure more troops will be sent.
Oh, and I believe our troops are supposed to be around 175,000 I think.

[edit on 11-11-2004 by elaine]



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 11:54 PM
link   
More troops on the ground - Australia should send more......



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by elaine
I heard on MSNBC earlier today that 20-30,000 more troops are supposed to be sent within the next two months.
Something about the "baloon" Falleujah would either "burst" when it was attacked or bubble out. I guess it "bubbled" out so now I'm sure more troops will be sent.
Oh, and I believe our troops are supposed to be around 175,000 I think.

[edit on 11-11-2004 by elaine]




and obviously 175,000 are not enough when they cant spare more than what 3 to 10 thousand to go to Fallujah and have just now on the third try gained any ground there at all. I see a critical tactical error when 6 additional cites are compramised do to the actions in one city

[edit on 12/11/2004 by drbryankkruta]



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyhellfire
More troops on the ground - Australia should send more......



they just got themselves tied up in the ivory cost didnt they, there evacing their citizens from there due to anti foreigner sentament arent they or was it somewhere else with same situation ,,,,,,so many places being screwed up right now I cant keep them strait any more

[edit on 12/11/2004 by drbryankkruta]



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 12:17 AM
link   
It seems to be taking an awul lot of time and manpower to contain the person or persons responsible for stealing one vase. That one vase that Rumsfeld inquired about. And there must still be some of the 100,000 prisoners Saddam freed roaming about.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyhellfire
More troops on the ground - Australia should send more......



hey, we didn't want this war, your President did, so leave our troops alone!! We're quite happy to have zero death count, thanx very much.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
It seems to be taking an awul lot of time and manpower to contain the person or persons responsible for stealing one vase. That one vase that Rumsfeld inquired about. And there must still be some of the 100,000 prisoners Saddam freed roaming about.




okay crazy person on board, what vase?



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by drbryankkruta

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
It seems to be taking an awul lot of time and manpower to contain the person or persons responsible for stealing one vase. That one vase that Rumsfeld inquired about. And there must still be some of the 100,000 prisoners Saddam freed roaming about.




okay crazy person on board, what vase?



yep, was just thinking about that vase myself



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by drbryankkrutaokay crazy person on board, what vase?

April 11, 2003;

Rumsfeld: Let me say one other thing. The images you are seeing on television you are seeing over, and over, and over, and it's the same picture of some person walking out of some building with a vase, and you see it 20 times, and you think, "My goodness, were there that many vases?" (Laughter.) "Is it possible that there were that many vases in the whole country?"

Q: Do you think that the words "anarchy" and "lawlessness" are ill-chosen --

Rumsfeld: Absolutely. I picked up a newspaper today and I couldn't believe it. I read eight headlines that talked about chaos, violence, unrest. And it just was Henny Penny -- "The sky is falling." I've never seen anything like it! And here is a country that's being liberated, here are people who are going from being repressed and held under the thumb of a vicious dictator, and they're free. And all this newspaper could do, with eight or 10 headlines, they showed a man bleeding, a civilian, who they claimed we had shot -- one thing after another. It's just unbelievable how people can take that away from what is happening in that country!

Do I think those words are unrepresentative? Yes.

Q: Given how predictable the lack of law and order was, as you said, from past conflicts, was there part of General Franks' plan to deal with it? And --

Rumsfeld: Of course.

Q: Well, what is it?

Rumsfeld: This is fascinating. This is just fascinating. From the very beginning, we were convinced that we would succeed, and that means that that regime would end. And we were convinced that as we went from the end of that regime to something other than that regime, there would be a period of transition. And, you cannot do everything instantaneously; it's never been done, everything instantaneously. We did, however, recognize that there was at least a chance of catastrophic success, if you will, to reverse the phrase, that you could in a given place or places have a victory that occurred well before reasonable people might have expected it, and that we needed to be ready for that; we needed to be ready with medicine, with food, with water. And, we have been.

And, you say, "Well, what was it in the plan?" The plan is a complex set of conclusions or ideas that then have a whole series of alternative excursions that one can do, depending on what happens. And, they have been doing that as they've been going along. And, they've been doing a darn good job.

Q: Yes, but Mr. Secretary, I'm asking about what plan was there to restore law and order?

Rumsfeld: Well, let's just take a city. Take the port city, Umm Qasr -- what the plan was. Well, the British went in, they built a pipeline bringing water in from Kuwait; they cleared the mine of ports (sic); they brought ships in with food; they've been providing security. In fact, they've done such a lousy job, that the city has gone from 15,000 to 40,000. Now think of that. Why would people vote with their feet and go into this place that's so bad? The reason they're going in is because they're food, there's water, there's medicine and there's jobs. That's why. The British have done a fantastic job. They've done an excellent job.

And, does that mean you couldn't go in there and take a television camera or get a still photographer and take a picture of something that was imperfect, untidy? I could do that in any city in America. Think what's happened in our cities when we've had riots, and problems, and looting. Stuff happens! But in terms of what's going on in that country, it is a fundamental misunderstanding to see those images over, and over, and over again of some boy walking out with a vase and say, "Oh, my goodness, you didn't have a plan." That's nonsense. They know what they're doing, and they're doing a terrific job. Andm it's untidy, and freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things, and that's what's going to happen here.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Maybe this is the vase he ( Rumsfield ) was talking about


Among the antiquities unaccounted for so far, Mr. George said, are the sacral vase of Warqa, from Sumerian times, and the bronze statue of Basitqi, from the Accadian civilization.
Link



[edit on 12/11/2004 by Sauron]



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 01:22 AM
link   
sounds like a confusing mess of huey where in one basic question was danced around "what is the plan" I would think that a reporter asking rumsfeld what the plan was would mean what is Americas plan and is it working, strategically speaking the spreading of insurgents from one city to 7 cant be a good plan so I would say this is an avoidance of a hard truth the plan what ever it is, is seeing far to many failures and delays


[edit on 12/11/2004 by drbryankkruta]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join