• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

US officers see need for bigger force in Iraq

Originally posted by: conjur
But by extending tours of duty?
:roll:

EXTENDING TOURS?!?!?!?

I know someone who has been there since the day major operation "ended" and Bush said "Mission Accomplished"

I guess "M.A." meant that Halliburton got enough money

Anyways, this guys kid is almost a year and 2 months old, and he saw her for only 2 weeks, then had to go back!
 
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: charrison
ooohhh..more unnamed sources...


I would be afraid to give my name to the public too if I were a commander under this administration.


So, we either have a commander that does not have the balls the demand more troops if he needs them or we have a bogus story.

Eitherway the story has to be questioned.
 
We're entering month 20 of "Mission Accomplished" and it looks like the "insurgents" will continue to "Bring 'em On".

Anyone who reads the news from Iraq knows the troop levels we have there currently aren't going to end the guerilla war that Bush's ill-planned invasion led to.

 
Originally posted by: BBond
We're entering month 20 of "Mission Accomplished" and it looks like the "insurgents" will continue to "Bring 'em On".

Anyone who reads the news from Iraq knows the troop levels we have there currently aren't going to end the guerilla war that Bush's ill-planned invasion led to.



ok, so what will it take?
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond
We're entering month 20 of "Mission Accomplished" and it looks like the "insurgents" will continue to "Bring 'em On".

Anyone who reads the news from Iraq knows the troop levels we have there currently aren't going to end the guerilla war that Bush's ill-planned invasion led to.



ok, so what will it take?

It will take a trip in a time machine back to March 19, 2003 to undo the monumental screw up Bush and his band of neocon idiots perpetrated.

 
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond
We're entering month 20 of "Mission Accomplished" and it looks like the "insurgents" will continue to "Bring 'em On".

Anyone who reads the news from Iraq knows the troop levels we have there currently aren't going to end the guerilla war that Bush's ill-planned invasion led to.



ok, so what will it take?

I will take a trip in a time machine back to March 19, 2003 to undo the monumental screw up Bush and his band of neocon idiots perpetrated.
So, you would put Saddam back in the drivers seat, huh?
 
Originally posted by: Ozoned
So, you would put Saddam back in the drivers seat, huh?
Considering he wasn't a threat, how is that a bad thing compared to the complete and utter fvck-up that is now called Iraq?
 
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond
We're entering month 20 of "Mission Accomplished" and it looks like the "insurgents" will continue to "Bring 'em On".

Anyone who reads the news from Iraq knows the troop levels we have there currently aren't going to end the guerilla war that Bush's ill-planned invasion led to.



ok, so what will it take?

I will take a trip in a time machine back to March 19, 2003 to undo the monumental screw up Bush and his band of neocon idiots perpetrated.
So, you would put Saddam back in the drivers seat, huh?

No, I would make up a lie and attack Iraq unprovoked.

 
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond
We're entering month 20 of "Mission Accomplished" and it looks like the "insurgents" will continue to "Bring 'em On".

Anyone who reads the news from Iraq knows the troop levels we have there currently aren't going to end the guerilla war that Bush's ill-planned invasion led to.



ok, so what will it take?

It will take a trip in a time machine back to March 19, 2003 to undo the monumental screw up Bush and his band of neocon idiots perpetrated.



That is not the question....try again.
 
You would have to go back looong farther then 2003 to undo the monumental screwup of the USA did of putting saddam in power.
The iraqis want to be left alone obviously bush and his buddies have other plans (oil) for iraq so troops stay, and the war continues until the people are freed from the invaders who have never had business putting saddam in power in the first place to kill them or to come invade them to kill them in 2003 either.
 
It will take at least another 50,000 troops, as McCain said, or more likely another 100,000 so the troops who have been in Iraq for over a year can catch a break.

But in my world here's what we'd do to straighten out the fiasco Bush's lies and lack of planning has caused.

Instead of spending $5.8 billion per month to try and prop up that illegitimate puppet thug Allawi, just pull out all U.S. forces and give Iraqi people the $5.8 billion -- along with an apology for killing and maiming untold thousands of them and turning their cities into rubble. They can use the money to rebuild the country themselves and the few foreigners who are there to fight will have no support and no choice but to leave.

Along with the apology we'll promise to put the madmen who are responsible for this catastrophe on trial for their crimes.

We can stop the bloodshed, get our troops out of the no-win situation they are in, and just maybe gain some respect back in the eyes of the world by bringing the criminals who caused this mess to justice.

 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Ozoned
So, you would put Saddam back in the drivers seat, huh?
Considering he wasn't a threat, how is that a bad thing compared to the complete and utter fvck-up that is now called Iraq?

I tend to gravitate towards rational thinking, and as such I don't entertain the notion that Saddam was not a threat.

That said, answering your question would be as ridiculous as entertaining the notion that we can go back in time and change something that has already come to pass.

In fact, my question to bbond was rhetorical with an attempt to capture for posterity the complete and utter lack of any semblance of rational thought.

With your reply and his, It would appear that I got two birds with one stone.

Heh heh.

 
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Ozoned
So, you would put Saddam back in the drivers seat, huh?
Considering he wasn't a threat, how is that a bad thing compared to the complete and utter fvck-up that is now called Iraq?

I tend to gravitate towards rational thinking, and as such I don't entertain the notion that Saddam was not a threat.

That said, answering your question would be as ridiculous as entertaining the notion that we can go back in time and change something that has already come to pass.

In fact, my question to bbond was rhetorical with an attempt to capture for posterity the complete and utter lack of any semblance of rational thought.

With your reply and his, It would appear that I got two birds with one stone.

Heh heh.

So just how was Saddam a threat? What was he going to attack us with? Spitballs?

heh

 
That is a awesome idea about the 5.8bil we would spend anyhow.
They would still be peeved at us for awhile in the aftermath of the US govt invading but not all of us here in America had any interest in making a totally soverign state "glass"

I am sure the world knows this too that not all of the fellow Americans wanted fallujah flattened.

Bring the soldiers home safe they have been at war long enough without being with their familys and no valid reason for them to police a hostile country to them in a unending guerilla war.


Iraq needs time to heal after all this and letting them rebuild themselves will show we are not just lying again and letting haliburton reap all the $$$ while they get paid to clean up americas own destruction of their home.
Iraqis are not stupid they are people like you and me and know this -they see it and live it.
Problem is:
I just can't see bush or his followers giving up on the supposedly "free" oil or the fundamentalists giving up on the hope that this was THE mideast war and the defining moment though to show you were a christian.
Something bad happened to peace earlier this month. :brokenheart:
 
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Ozoned
So, you would put Saddam back in the drivers seat, huh?
Considering he wasn't a threat, how is that a bad thing compared to the complete and utter fvck-up that is now called Iraq?

I tend to gravitate towards rational thinking, and as such I don't entertain the notion that Saddam was not a threat.

That said, answering your question would be as ridiculous as entertaining the notion that we can go back in time and change something that has already come to pass.

In fact, my question to bbond was rhetorical with an attempt to capture for posterity the complete and utter lack of any semblance of rational thought.

With your reply and his, It would appear that I got two birds with one stone.

Heh heh.
So just how was Saddam a threat? What was he going to attack us with? Spitballs?



Already been discussed. Over and over and over and over and over and over with people that are actually rational. Regretably, the issue is not one that can be agreed upon. Rational people understand that. But hey you want to give it a go, I would suggest that you could start Here I'd be inclined to think that there are several threads that you could reply to. 😀


 
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Ozoned
So, you would put Saddam back in the drivers seat, huh?
Considering he wasn't a threat, how is that a bad thing compared to the complete and utter fvck-up that is now called Iraq?

I tend to gravitate towards rational thinking, and as such I don't entertain the notion that Saddam was not a threat.

That said, answering your question would be as ridiculous as entertaining the notion that we can go back in time and change something that has already come to pass.

In fact, my question to bbond was rhetorical with an attempt to capture for posterity the complete and utter lack of any semblance of rational thought.

With your reply and his, It would appear that I got two birds with one stone.

Heh heh.
So just how was Saddam a threat? What was he going to attack us with? Spitballs?



Already been discussed. Over and over and over and over and over and over with people that are actually rational. Regretably, the issue is not one that can be agreed upon. Rational people understand that. But hey you want to give it a go, I would suggest that you could start Here I'd be inclined to think that there are several threads that you could reply to. 😀

It has been discussed, by Hans Blix, Mohammed ElBaridei, David Kay, Charles Duelfer...the list is getting very long but they all agree on one thing...Saddam was no threat to anyone. He couldn't project a threat against his neighbors no less America.

Haven't you heard? Bush lied.

 
I see a need for a bigger military presence in Iraq. But I have no military experience so believe what you will. I just wonder why don't we increase the size of our armed forces? It doesn't seem like we can rely on our reserves like this for the next 2-3 years or however long it takes to finish what we started in Iraq.
 
Back
Top