Pentagon Extends All Iraq Tours 3 Months

[M14 Shooter]

Iraq Tours

I have been screamed at by army families since this hit the news (I work for the DOD and volunteer with family support services for the military). I'm really surprised that no one here posted this.
I want to know where all the people who supposedly support the troops and think this surge was a good idea are.
This is incredibly damaging to the families and the troops.

It USED to be that troops were deployed for the duration, and didn't rotate home at all.

How, oh how, did we EVER fight wars back then? :roll:

 

[DeeJayH]

It USED to be that troopps were deployed for the duration, and didn't rotate home at all.

How, oh how, did we EVER fight wars back then? :roll:

well you see
now a days
everybody including all the politicians children should be in the military
and everybody is rotated in and out of the hot zones on a weekly basis
thats how wars are won
:rofl

military is a job, if not a career
not summer camp

wish I could rack up 100 thanks on your post
:applaud

 

[alienken]

Yeah I'm sure our great success in Iraq has rendered our enemies impotent and scared them so much!

I honestly believe AQ is more emboldened today after 6+ years of Bush than it was prior to Bush being President.

Yea, the success of taken out the AQ leaders in Iraq.The AQ2nd in comand that was in charge of the forces in Iraq wrote a letter to Binladen requesting funds because things were going bad for them. That was before we killed him and nine of his generals at the same time. NINE! These were the ones that would take his place, now they are reaching to the bottom of the stack and placing people in command possitions.

 

[alienken]

You seem to have forgotten what you wrote and what I questioned:

I do not believe that is what the 9-11 Commission stated and that is what I am pronouncing as untrue.

Here's an interesting question for Bush apologists:

How many Al Qaeda attacks have been carried out against Americans in Iraq since 2003 compared to Al Qaeda attacks against Americans during the previous 10 years?

So often the Radical Right Wing in this Forum cite how often AQ attacked Americans during the Clinton years but do not count the myriad of attacks (far more) that have occurred under Bush!

Of course AQ is attacking Americans in Iraq, IT'S A WAR ZONE! To the people who feel that Iraq is not part of the war on terror. WE HAVE BEEN FIGHTING AQ DIRECTLY IN IRAQ! The last bomb that was set off in the Gov. building in Bagdad recently was by AQ.

 

[alienken]

well you see
now a days
everybody including all the politicians children should be in the military
and everybody is rotated in and out of the hot zones on a weekly basis
thats how wars are won
:rofl

military is a job, if not a career
not summer camp

wish I could rack up 100 thanks on your post
:applaud

No, even the military leaders will tell you how bad things go when they have drafted troops that don't want to be there. This country is so great and our military so huge that we can fight a two front war with volunters with no good reason to draft and civilians at home do not have to sacrifice anything during the war.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, even the military leaders will tell you how bad things go when they have drafted troops that don't want to be there.

What does that have to do the situation we have today, and the idea that war USED to be fought with troops deployed for the duration?

The point is, the idea that troops can only stay in a combat area for a year is just silly, and the idea that extended their tour from 12 to 15 months is such a TERRIBLE thing is absurd.

 

[alienken]

What does that have to do the situation we have today, and the idea that war USED to be fought with troops deployed for the duration?

The point is, the idea that troops can only stay in a combat area for a year is just silly, and the idea that extended their tour from 12 to 15 months is such a TERRIBLE thing is absurd.

Yes, your right about that.The men and women of our military are there for a purpose.Obviuosly they are not expendable but the President should not be afraid to use them when necessary for as long of duration as necessary...I was refering to the comment "everyone's children including the politicians' should be in the military" that I disagree with, though 6 months of boot camp would do some of these teenage brats some good.

 

[Hatuey]

It USED to be that troops were deployed for the duration, and didn't rotate home at all.

How, oh how, did we EVER fight wars back then? :roll:

We threw troops at the enemy until the war was over. Notice how we decided this would not be the right course of action with the Japanese and the made the mistake of thinking it would with the Vietnamese.

 

[DeeJayH]

We threw troops at the enemy until the war was over. Notice how we decided this would not be the right course of action with the Japanese and the made the mistake of thinking it would with the Vietnamese.

am I missing something? or are you saying after Pearl Harbor we just Nuked teh Japs? no truoops involved?

 

[M14 Shooter]

We threw troops at the enemy until the war was over. Notice how we decided this would not be the right course of action with the Japanese...

We "threw troops" at the Japanese until August of 1945, and we were prepared to continue to do so if necessary.

and the made the mistake of thinking it would with the Vietnamese.

It did. We slaughtered the NVA/VC.

In any case, you avoided my point.
We used to deploy troops for the duration.
When we did that, we won wars.

 

[M14 Shooter]

am I missing something? or are you saying after Pearl Harbor we just Nuked teh Japs? no truoops involved?

Col. Dolittle was carrying nukes! Didn't you know that?

 

[Hatuey]

am I missing something? or are you saying after Pearl Harbor we just Nuked teh Japs? no truoops involved?

No I'm saying that the United States government of 1945 realized after 3 years that they'd lose more if they kept throwing wave after wave of our army at the enemy then by just nuking Japan. How long did the Vietnam war last? 16 years? How long did it take Japan to surrender after we sent fat man and little boy?

 

[Hatuey]

We "threw troops" at the Japanese until August of 1945, and we were prepared to continue to do so if necessary.

Bullshit, our governmen knew that we would lose more my invading Japan then by just nuking them.

It did. We slaughtered the NVA/VC.

In any case, you avoided my point.
We used to deploy troops for the duration.
When we did that, we won wars.

Really? Last time I checked NK was a stalemate....Vietnam ended with 57,000 dead soldiers after 16 years....how did Iraq Part 1 end? Saddam still in power. I guess yeah if we just keep throwing troops at the enemy. They'll just give up. My point is that we should have crushed the enemy from the start. Not let him build up the way he's done in Iraq. Now our chances of destabilizing the situation are next to none unless we decide to bring troop numbers up 3x 4x.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Bullshit, our governmen knew that we would lose more my invading Japan then by just nuking them.

That doesnt negate what I said.
If they did not surrender after we nuked them, we would have invaded.

Really? Last time I checked NK was a stalemate....Vietnam ended with 57,000 dead soldiers after 16 years....how did Iraq Part 1 end?

We did not leave troops in Vietnam for 'the duration'. That we did not win Nam only supports my point.
We -did- leave troops in Iraq (in 1991) for the duration -- and we won.

Saddam still in power.

Removing Saddam wasnt the objective.

I guess yeah if we just keep throwing troops at the enemy. They'll just give up. My point is that we should have crushed the enemy from the start. Not let him build up the way he's done in Iraq. Now our chances of destabilizing the situation are next to none unless we decide to bring troop numbers up 3x 4x.

Meaningless to my point.

 

[Hatuey]

That doesnt negate what I said.
If they did not surrender after we nuked them, we would have invaded.

We knew they would not attack mainly because of the target choices. The bombs were thrown because an invasion on Japan was not an option as it would yield casualties(for our side) many times greater then the ones at Okinawa.

We did not leave troops in Vietnam for 'the duration'. That we did not win Nam only supports my point.

Like I said we defeated Japan after 4 years + 2 atomic bombs. Thanks mostly to the Atomic bombs. What makes you think that without an equivalent display of strength we would have won Vietnam? We won wars when we displayed strength. Not when we hung around and waited for the enemy to give up. That strategy was an obvious failure in Vietnam and is once again showing itself to be a failure in Iraq.

We -did- leave troops in Iraq (in 1991) for the duration -- and we won.

Dick Cheney said it better then I could when talking about staying in Iraq.

"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."[19]

But I guess some people don't follow their own advise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We knew they would not attack mainly because of the target choices. The bombs were thrown because an invasion on Japan was not an option as it would yield casualties(for our side) many times greater then the ones at Okinawa.

LOL
The ONLY thing that stopped the invasion was that the Nips surrendered after we dropped the bombs. had we not dropped them, or had they not surrendered, we would have invaded.

Like I said we defeated Japan after 4 years + 2 atomic bombs. Thanks mostly to the Atomic bombs.

Japan was effectively defeated well before the bombs were dropped -- all that was left by August 45 was in the final invasion.

What makes you think that without an equivalent display of strength we would have won Vietnam? We won wars when we displayed strength. Not when we hung around and waited for the enemy to give up. That strategy was an obvious failure in Vietnam and is once again showing itself to be a failure in Iraq.

Sounds like you agree - troops need to be committed for the duration.

 

[DeeJayH]

actually it sounds like instead of waging conventional war and sending in troops
we should just nuke whomever we have a problem
no american lives lost :roll: