***POLL*** How many more troops will Bush send to Iraq?
- Thread starter techs
- Start date
Thump553
Lifer
- Jun 2, 2000
- 12,839
- 2,625
- 136
Last rumor I heard was he will announce this Tuesday. I don't think he will wait two weeks. From a political standpoint (which is basically all that matters-he has been stalling so that people forget the bipartisan report, and to get further away from the election) waiting two weeks more will allow the Democratic Congress' 100 hour plan to gain too much public attention and support.
I'm very interested in what the public response will be to his announcement. I'm persnally sick of our troops being the frontline for a Shia government.
I'm very interested in what the public response will be to his announcement. I'm persnally sick of our troops being the frontline for a Shia government.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
In terms of guessing---its always a question of who knows what stupidity lurks in the mind of GWB--only the shadows know---but I am guessing that GWB will decide to send something like 10-15 thousand extra troops in in the initial phase---after somewhat of a fight---he will get congressional begruding go along. The extra troops won't make any difference so more may or may not be sent in---that will consume 3-6 months of time for everyone to realise that failed. Then the public will turn to the dems---and they will hem and haw, with blizzards of rhetoric, sound, and fury---and until its apparent that they have no real plan either---but some troops may be pulled out meanwhile---this process again take some 3-6 months.
Somewhere in the middle of the democratic non-plan phase---if not during the GWB build up phase,
Iraq will go full blown civil war or the entire mid-east will erupt in a broader war.
Making all these build up or draw down debates totally irrelevant.
(@ll )
I hope I am wrong---but time will tell.
Somewhere in the middle of the democratic non-plan phase---if not during the GWB build up phase,
Iraq will go full blown civil war or the entire mid-east will erupt in a broader war.
Making all these build up or draw down debates totally irrelevant.
(@ll )
I hope I am wrong---but time will tell.
Would you rather we let them fail and a new terrorist take over and create even more training camps for what to be terrorists?? Give me a break! I?m on my 3rd tour here in Iraq and believe me you don?t us to leave right now. If we did your kids will be back here in 10 more years! Lest finish this job and help them stabilize and get on their feet.
- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,559
- 4
- 0
Uh, and exactly what training camps in Iraq are you talking about??? And what do you mean finish the job? The situation has been getting worse since the end of major combat. So I assume you mean finishing the job of total destruction of Iraqi society? Total failure of its government? Total civil war? Because thats the way things are heading.
Well... the military is already pushed to the brink, so who knows. We need to send more troops to help and support the troops that are there. Problem is people are already on their second and third tour of duty and the reserves and gaurds are already being sent. So unless we start a clone army, i think i smell draft. Lets see if there is any reform so that it isnt only the poor kids who go and then get to come back to nothing, while the rich kids had 6 years to surmount a fortune.
We can't. Iraq is too much of a mess right now. We are doing this all alone and no matter what we do, it gets worse and worse and worse. We have to pull out. If we don't, then our economy will be effected drastically. We'll have an even higher debt that our children or even grandchildren will be stuck with.
We do have over a million people in our military...we can bring more troops in temporarily if we have to.
He's talking about the training camps that would be created if we left Iraq for the terrorists and insurgents. He said specifically said the other camps he was referring to were in Iraq. BTW, there were training camps in Iraq before the war.
I think there's a decent chance that he plans to ask for more than the democrats will give so he can blame them.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
I wish everyone to note that I have edited my previous post---by adding a copyright Lemon law to my advance history---can I copyright history? and require all subsequent generations
who read what amounts to what will becomes certain history to pay me my copyright fee--even if I hope I am wrong?
But be it resolved---(1) The world had a stable and terrorist free Iraq before GWB&co, tinkered with it. And given what all intelligence services knew at the time--Saddam was
so weakened by Gulf war one that he could not threaten anyone. (2) Any increase in Al-Quida type terrorism in Iraq must be laid squarely at the feet of the GWB administration---before that level was zero---now the risk is real it will spread and greatly increase. (3) We have totally broken any stability in Iraq---and not only are we failing to stabilize it, we have also put ourselves in the middle of a huge number of other mid-east issues---and have greatly magnified the Sunni-Shia split--and the Arab Israeli rift. And without a US troop
commitment of at least 500,000 to 1,000,000 troops---we cannot hope to stabilize Iraq in our own right---so we must both go to the international community and address Islamic type issues we are ill equipped to deal with--and have been demonizing---or be prepared to poney up those 500,000+ troops----anything less will do nothing.
I also note GWB refuses to alter his original goals---and three years late is only slightly changing his tactics-- the only conclusion now is that GWB had goals but no realistic plan to
attain them.-----so either one alters those goals to cut losses---or you find ways to come up with a totally new game plan---since we have neither and will never get either from GWB,
its almost certain other events not to our liking will break the impasse and resolve the issue. Who can be so self-deluded to think the very bumbling idiot who broke it can fix it?
Its time for some radical thinking. Not more of the same plus 10%.---or we will be in exactly the same situation as the brits---who had a 20 year occupation of Iraq after WW1,
and accomplished zero by the time public opinion forced withddrawing them.
who read what amounts to what will becomes certain history to pay me my copyright fee--even if I hope I am wrong?
But be it resolved---(1) The world had a stable and terrorist free Iraq before GWB&co, tinkered with it. And given what all intelligence services knew at the time--Saddam was
so weakened by Gulf war one that he could not threaten anyone. (2) Any increase in Al-Quida type terrorism in Iraq must be laid squarely at the feet of the GWB administration---before that level was zero---now the risk is real it will spread and greatly increase. (3) We have totally broken any stability in Iraq---and not only are we failing to stabilize it, we have also put ourselves in the middle of a huge number of other mid-east issues---and have greatly magnified the Sunni-Shia split--and the Arab Israeli rift. And without a US troop
commitment of at least 500,000 to 1,000,000 troops---we cannot hope to stabilize Iraq in our own right---so we must both go to the international community and address Islamic type issues we are ill equipped to deal with--and have been demonizing---or be prepared to poney up those 500,000+ troops----anything less will do nothing.
I also note GWB refuses to alter his original goals---and three years late is only slightly changing his tactics-- the only conclusion now is that GWB had goals but no realistic plan to
attain them.-----so either one alters those goals to cut losses---or you find ways to come up with a totally new game plan---since we have neither and will never get either from GWB,
its almost certain other events not to our liking will break the impasse and resolve the issue. Who can be so self-deluded to think the very bumbling idiot who broke it can fix it?
Its time for some radical thinking. Not more of the same plus 10%.---or we will be in exactly the same situation as the brits---who had a 20 year occupation of Iraq after WW1,
and accomplished zero by the time public opinion forced withddrawing them.
And whats your solution? We can't win a war of attrition and theres no way in hell we will be able to solve a religious conflict. Our enemies are highly motivated and continuing to kill them at our current pace will not fix anything. I think to truely stop the insurgency we would need to destroy Iraq on the same scale that we destroyed Japan and Germany in WWII. To defeat the German ideology we did more than just win on the battlefield. We bombed cities and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. We defeated their ideology by destroying their country so bad that surrender was the only viable option. The insurgents in Iraq feel none of this pressure. No threat of starvation and little threat of defeat (remember that they "win" by blowing themselves up).
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
To Blackllotus,
Who ends---I think to truely stop the insurgency we would need to destroy Iraq on the same scale that we destroyed Japan and Germany in WWII. To defeat the German ideology we did more than just win on the battlefield. We bombed cities and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. We defeated their ideology by destroying their country so bad that surrender was the only viable option. The insurgents in Iraq feel none of this pressure. No threat of starvation and little threat of defeat (remember that they "win" by blowing themselves up).
Totally wrong interpretation--------our enemy was and never was the Iraqi people---it was and always was the evil Saddam Hussien---and the over-optimistic plan Mr. Potatoe head plan of GWB that failed is that we could take take out Saddam and his evil Bahiest party friends---graft a new democratic head on the existing Iraqi government now purged of evil, and everyone would live happily ever after---nice fantasy but when we took out Saddam the whole existing government went with him--so there is no body to graft a head onto and we are now stuck with an OCCUPATION GWB was totally unprepared for.
But what is totally wrongheaded about your post is you seem to be blaming the average Iraqi on the street for the problem---when probably something on the order of 99% of Iraqi yearn for just a stable government---and maybe a greedy and revenge minded 1% run around totally unpoliced creating anarchy. So you advocate punishing everyone???????--and if not---how do you separate the innocent from the instigators when innocents are dying like flies.---and now have to look at the group with guns for mere survival because we won't protect them from the thugs.
But under international law--the occupying force is OBLIGATED AND IS RESPONSIBLE for the policing---something we have not done for over three years as the problem grows daily worse.
ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THE IRAQI PEOPLE ARE COLLECTIVELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MESS ARE DEEPLY DELUSIONAL.
And to add to that---we did bomb Iraq on a scale similar to that of Japan in Gulf war one.
Totally destroying the Iraqi economy and infrastructure---but keeping Saddam in power--something on the order of a half million Iraqi children died for lack of medicines in the resulting embargoes. Iraqi employment now stands at 50+ plus and little is being done to rebuild anything. And all we care about is the fiction we have a democratic group of Iraqis elected who sit in some little room in the green zone and bicker.
Who ends---I think to truely stop the insurgency we would need to destroy Iraq on the same scale that we destroyed Japan and Germany in WWII. To defeat the German ideology we did more than just win on the battlefield. We bombed cities and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. We defeated their ideology by destroying their country so bad that surrender was the only viable option. The insurgents in Iraq feel none of this pressure. No threat of starvation and little threat of defeat (remember that they "win" by blowing themselves up).
Totally wrong interpretation--------our enemy was and never was the Iraqi people---it was and always was the evil Saddam Hussien---and the over-optimistic plan Mr. Potatoe head plan of GWB that failed is that we could take take out Saddam and his evil Bahiest party friends---graft a new democratic head on the existing Iraqi government now purged of evil, and everyone would live happily ever after---nice fantasy but when we took out Saddam the whole existing government went with him--so there is no body to graft a head onto and we are now stuck with an OCCUPATION GWB was totally unprepared for.
But what is totally wrongheaded about your post is you seem to be blaming the average Iraqi on the street for the problem---when probably something on the order of 99% of Iraqi yearn for just a stable government---and maybe a greedy and revenge minded 1% run around totally unpoliced creating anarchy. So you advocate punishing everyone???????--and if not---how do you separate the innocent from the instigators when innocents are dying like flies.---and now have to look at the group with guns for mere survival because we won't protect them from the thugs.
But under international law--the occupying force is OBLIGATED AND IS RESPONSIBLE for the policing---something we have not done for over three years as the problem grows daily worse.
ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THE IRAQI PEOPLE ARE COLLECTIVELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MESS ARE DEEPLY DELUSIONAL.
And to add to that---we did bomb Iraq on a scale similar to that of Japan in Gulf war one.
Totally destroying the Iraqi economy and infrastructure---but keeping Saddam in power--something on the order of a half million Iraqi children died for lack of medicines in the resulting embargoes. Iraqi employment now stands at 50+ plus and little is being done to rebuild anything. And all we care about is the fiction we have a democratic group of Iraqis elected who sit in some little room in the green zone and bicker.
I'm going to guess 30,000 extra troops. Let's see how close I get. 
BTW, unless it's much more than 30K, then the "surge" with be virtually worthless.
BTW, unless it's much more than 30K, then the "surge" with be virtually worthless.
And how do we end this occupation? We either leave or we totally destroy Iraq. Attrition won't work.
I wasn't blaming the Iraqis for anything. We created the situation in which their religious tensions can go unchecked. The blame is on us.
I guess I wasn't clear in my post. I was pointing out that victory in Iraq is impossible without extreme measures. I don't advocate taking those measures in any way.
Every soldier he can scrape up. With the same logic of appeaseing an erupting volcano by throwing in more sacrifices.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
To WHAMPON,
Who writes---Every soldier he can scrape up. With the same logic of appeaseing an erupting volcano by throwing in more sacrifices.
You have the general idea---but they may not be human sacrifices---but more like convicts on a chain gang to be punished--whose mission--after being given sledge
hammers, is to take big rocks and break those big rocks into little rocks---after some point in time---all you end up doing is pounding sand. And with sand--all you do
is just move it somewhere else-----------in short you can break a hell of a sweat---and accomplish nothing. So you hit somewhere else--and refill the crater your previous
sledge hammer blow created. Or just have a sandpile with a heck of a lot of holes in it
Or if you like Greek mythology---they may be better used if they all stand on the ocean shore---in solidarity with GWB--and will the tide not to come in.
But if we get really serious and real---its going to take at least 15,000 troops to break the power of Al-Sadr and his militia---and a US alone death toll of 2500 minimum
if they are committed into urban combat on their home turf. Later that militia will reform and that does not count the thousands of smaller militias all over Iraq. Nor does
that count the innocent Iraqi civilians that will die as a result. At a ratio of five totally innocent Iraqi to every US troop death or so.---maybe to achieve a 2 to 1 kill ratio on
Iraqi insurgents.
Who writes---Every soldier he can scrape up. With the same logic of appeaseing an erupting volcano by throwing in more sacrifices.
You have the general idea---but they may not be human sacrifices---but more like convicts on a chain gang to be punished--whose mission--after being given sledge
hammers, is to take big rocks and break those big rocks into little rocks---after some point in time---all you end up doing is pounding sand. And with sand--all you do
is just move it somewhere else-----------in short you can break a hell of a sweat---and accomplish nothing. So you hit somewhere else--and refill the crater your previous
sledge hammer blow created. Or just have a sandpile with a heck of a lot of holes in it
Or if you like Greek mythology---they may be better used if they all stand on the ocean shore---in solidarity with GWB--and will the tide not to come in.
But if we get really serious and real---its going to take at least 15,000 troops to break the power of Al-Sadr and his militia---and a US alone death toll of 2500 minimum
if they are committed into urban combat on their home turf. Later that militia will reform and that does not count the thousands of smaller militias all over Iraq. Nor does
that count the innocent Iraqi civilians that will die as a result. At a ratio of five totally innocent Iraqi to every US troop death or so.---maybe to achieve a 2 to 1 kill ratio on
Iraqi insurgents.
Let me guess your basing your comments on the media? Of course you are because your not here and can't see. Well let me educate you a little from where the rubber meets the road.
Was in in 03, 04 and 06 getting ready to leave soon. The difference in this place is night and day! Everything from the infrastructure to the peoples attitude toward Americans. Your not going to see anything good on your TV about this place. The media is giving you what they want you to see. I was here for several major incident in 04 The news you got on those incident was APPLING!! I'm sorry but you will not see the truth from our MSM.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter