More Troops to Baghdad (1 Viewer)

[Pacridge]

More U.S. Troops to Be Sent To Iraq

Deployments Will Be Extended for Elections



By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 2, 2004; Page A01



The Pentagon said yesterday that it will boost the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to about 150,000, the highest level since the U.S. occupation began 19 months ago.

Most of the increase in the troop count -- which stands at about 138,000 now -- will come from the extended deployment of units already there as others arrive. That will keep some troops in Iraq for combat tours of 14 months, beyond the year-long mission that most service members are told to expect, Pentagon officials said. In addition to extending some brigades from the 1st Cavalry Division, the 25th Infantry Division and the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, about 1,500 paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division will be sent from Fort Bragg, N.C., to Baghdad for about 120 days.

Boy, I don't know about you but I for one am glad "major combat operations" ended back in May of 2003. Now if we can just get these elections out of the way in Jan. 2005 maybe we can keep our troop levels under 200,000 before summer 2005.

 

[Ender]

Yeah really.

How long till the Iraq fiasco is over?

Lets just say we best not pack up the good china. Because we'll be there for a -very- long time.

 

[Pacridge]

Yeah really.

How long till the Iraq fiasco is over?

Lets just say we best not pack up the good china. Because we'll be there for a -very- long time.

What are you saying? Haven't you heard? Major combat operations ended back in May of 2003. We're sending more troops because the average everyday Iraqi citizen "is damn glad we're there." That's why we've been able to increase our troop numbers, wait a minute, how does this make sense again? :thinking

 

[Ender]

What are you saying? Haven't you heard? Major combat operations ended back in May of 2003.

Yeah but that dude wasn't even really president at that time. Now he's "Legit" because he actually won an election. (no president has been unseated during times of war, no matter how dim a bulb he may have been, but hey, why quibble right?)

We're sending more troops because the average everyday Iraqi citizen "is damn glad we're there." That's why we've been able to increase our troop numbers, wait a minute, how does this make sense again? :thinking

You don't understand. It's not the Iraqi's we're fighting. It's the "insurgents".

Who are these "insurgents"? I don't know. Supposedly the folks who used to back and work for Hussein. I suppose he only hired out or something. But damn them whoever they are for keeping those poor Iraqis from becomming the freedom loving people they wish to be.

 

[Schweddy]

Yeah but that dude wasn't even really president at that time.

Please enlighten us and let us know when Clinton was actually elected - by your standards?
Hint: He never got the popular vote.

Who are these "insurgents"? I don't know. Supposedly the folks who used to back and work for Hussein. I suppose he only hired out or something. But damn them whoever they are for keeping those poor Iraqis from becomming the freedom loving people they wish to be.

The insurgents are terrorists groups that may be from Iraq or another country trying to keep democracy from taking over. They will do whatever they can to keep that from happening. Including cutting off the heads of civilian men and women of countries in the coalition.

 

[IronTongue]

Consider this:

Our president will sworn in again in January, and they are saying that it's going to be like a fortress as far as security goes. The government believes that someone will try to attack that day and thus the increased security.

Iraq's elections are happening in January, and they are sending more troops in the secure the area. Our military believes that the insurgents will try to attack on that day thus the increased security.

 

[Pacridge]

Please enlighten us and let us know when Clinton was actually elected - by your standards?
Hint: He never got the popular vote.

Oh the old let's compare apples and oranges tactic. Or in this case let's compare apples and jet engines.

First off Mr.Clinton got more votes then the other two canidates running that year (I'm assuming you're talkng about the 1992 election), Clinton 43%, Bush Sr. 37% and Perot 19%. So even elementary level math students should be able to determine that winner.

This isn't the case with Mr. Bush in 2000, now is it? Bush received 50,456,062 votes and Gore got 50,996,582.

Then you have the whole Florida recount mess. Depending on which side you WANT, I say want because I really don't think either side gives a crap about looking at the facts. It's all about winning, at any cost. Damn the ethics. So depending on which side you want to believe, your guy won, but Bush was sworn in and that's all that really matters. And this explains why my neighbor wears a t-shirt that reads "We stole it fair and square"

 

[Ender]

Please enlighten us and let us know when Clinton was actually elected - by your standards? Hint: He never got the popular vote.

Pacridge covered that so I'll leave it.

The insurgents are terrorists groups that may be from Iraq or another country trying to keep democracy from taking over. They will do whatever they can to keep that from happening. Including cutting off the heads of civilian men and women of countries in the coalition.

I was kinda being "toung in cheek" there. Your responce is the "neatly packaged" explaination of our current administration. It's not quite that simple.

The insurgents are mostly Hussein supporters. Many worked for him. He may have brought some in from other countries, I'm not sure. But, it doesn't change the fact that they are ,in the majority, people who live in Iraq. Probably helped in some cases by Alqada operatives.

They only really earn the designate "terrorist" because they use truck bombs and such to fight a larger ivading force.

Were -we- invaded here in America. And our military beaten, I'd use the same tactics to rid my home of the invaders. Quite possibly worse.

They will do whatever they can to keep that from happening. Including cutting off the heads of civilian men and women of countries in the coalition.

Of course they will. They don't believe in Democracy. Don't want it practiced in their country. And will go to any lengths to stop it.

Let's say (just to show a point) Russia took our nation over by military force and pushed to have us all embrace communism.

Would you lie down and submit to them?

Or would you use truck bombs and kill "civilians" to confuse the process? Could you even diferenciate between "civilian" and "combatant"? And if you could, why would you care?

 

[Ender]

Consider this:Our president will sworn in again in January, and they are saying that it's going to be like a fortress as far as security goes. The government believes that someone will try to attack that day and thus the increased security.

I hope they do. I don't like Bush. Dispise his ideals in fact. But, I'd hate to see him assassinated.

 

[IronTongue]

Regardless of whether or not you like him, Bush's assination would only result in a HUGE morale boost for the enemy. HUGE HUGE HUGE. The government knows this, and the same effect would be had if the elections failed to happen.

 

[Pacridge]

Regardless of whether or not you like him, Bush's assination would only result in a HUGE morale boost for the enemy. HUGE HUGE HUGE. The government knows this, and the same effect would be had if the elections failed to happen.

Don't like Bush but wouldn't want him assassinated. Two words come to mind, President Cheney, scary!

 

[IronTongue]

Ever watch Dave Chapelle stand-up?

"If I were the president I would have a mexican vice president. 'You can assinate me if you want, but you're just going to open up the border, right VP Santiago?' 'Si...siiiiii'

 

[Pacridge]

Ever watch Dave Chapelle stand-up?

"If I were the president I would have a mexican vice president. 'You can assinate me if you want, but you're just going to open up the border, right VP Santiago?' 'Si...siiiiii'

Yep! I love Dave.

Which is my point- in this Admin. Cheney may be the only guy to lie more often then Bush.