NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently so. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6429131.stm)

Thoughts?

It's not nearly enough.

Their not my countrymen, so I don't care.

Good. :rolleyes:

If our overall strategy in Iraq was more intelligent then we wouldn't need to keep sending troops because we'd winning.

I'm sitting here trying to be a smart ass about it, but I just don't know where the hell Captain Dumbass thinks he's gonna get the extra divisions he needs to save his "legacy" in Iraq. His leadership makes Captain Queeg look like Lord Nelson.

If our overall strategy in Iraq was more intelligent then we wouldn't need to keep sending troops because we'd winning.

What we need to do is a 50cent tax on personal gas consumption. The revenue raised should be then used to recruit the second tier of the current phase of dickheads. Those who are reasonable should be paid to continue to stabilize the country towards a function democracy, those who are not should be done away with.

In other words, build them the things to build things with.

At the same time, we need a draft to massively increase the number of troops to enforce the rule of law. This could be paid for by removing the social security contribution cap and removing the wage earnings link.

That would be the fastest way to do it.

There should also be a 'heads will role' policy, wherein people who have fucked this up so far get into a lot of trouble.

Thoughts?

Less of Iraq and more of Afg. That is where the real fight is.

Let me be callous and say that let Iran and KSA fight it out in Iraq. They have been itching for it for several centuries now....

Less of Iraq and more of Afg. That is where the real fight is.


Yes. But you just want NATO to invade Pakistan.

If Rumsfeld hadn't delayed the entry of the 4th ID into the war and then canceled the 1st Cav's deployment immediately after the war we proably wouldn't be having this discussion.

Yes. But you just want NATO to invade Pakistan.

Not necessarily.

I would be happy if the infiltration is nipped at the border and Afg civilians are not paying with their blood.

If we did it right we would have been out of Iraq a long time ago. Rumsfeld's idiotic doctrine is fine for an invasion. But it doesn't work after the invasion when your'e trying to keep insurgents down. The 20 000 that are going in and more were supposed to be there a long time ago, to keep the insurgents down until Iraq could do the job themselves. But the case up until now has been we haven't had the numbers to stop the insurgents which inturn made it harder to train the Iraqi army. Damn Rumsfeld.

What?

Apparently so. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6429131.stm)

Thoughts?

I'll just throw this out there...

Unfortunately, this isn't a surge, just a reinforcement, and a pretty small one. And if you have to ask whether it'll work, you don't understand guerrilla war. Of course it won't work. Classic guerrilla doctrine - Hell, plain common sense - says when the occupier floods the city with troops, the guerrilla lays low. Which the Iraqis are doing. And yet people are so stupid they're already crowing that "incidents are down" since the Surge.

Well, duh. That's the idea: avoid battle, watch the Arabic-subtitled Dynasty reruns, let the clueless foreigners zoom up and down the alleys. Meanwhile, every soccer-playing kid in the street is memorizing patrol times and tipping his uncle off about the vulnerable small outposts we're now occupying as part of our meet-&-greet policy. Just yesterday the Sunni hit one of those mixed Iraqi/US outposts in daylight: two GIs killed, 17 wounded.

There's no point watching this like a Dow Jones graph, because any sane primate knows where it's going. Bush drove our car into a tree, and it's not going to un-total itself. All the crazies on Free Republic who screech "Nuke it from orbit!" are actually talking sense compared to Cheney & co. Because nuking the Sunni Triangle would work - might cause trouble elsewhere, but it would solve our problems in places like Ramadi. Whereas feeding more troops in, putting them on show to be blasted by IEDs - that's not warlike, that's...see, I can't even come up with a word for what these neocons are. They're not warmongers, that's for sure, because they'll never use our nukes. They're tinkerers, that's what it is - home improvement assholes who hit the sewer main with their first dig, then try to pretend the shit isn't filling up the basement. They won't nuke or leave, just hope their salaries rise faster than the sewage level.

http://www.exile.ru/2007-February-23/the_modocs_a_beautiful_little_war.html


...so yeah, you can guess what I think.

Apparently so. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6429131.stm)

Thoughts?One comes to mind ...
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/4-0&fp=45ef172a8b8234bb&ei=57zvRbX0M5TQqQPTw4zSCA&url=http%3A//www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/16817611.htm&cid=0
Report says 90 percent of national guard unprepared
UNITS' ABILITY TO HANDLE CRISES AT HOME THREATENED BY SHORTAGES
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post

WASHINGTON - Nearly 90 percent of Army National Guard units in the United
States are rated ``not ready'' -- largely because of shortfalls in equipment
worth billions of dollars -- jeopardizing the Guard's ability to respond to
crises at home and abroad, according to a congressional commission that
released a preliminary report Thursday on the state of U.S. military reserve
forces.

The commission found that heavy deployments of the National Guard and
Reserves since 2001 for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and other
anti-terrorism missions have deepened shortages, forced the military to
cobble together units and hurt recruiting. The problems threaten to
undermine the nation's 830,000-strong selected reserves, the commission
said.

``We can't sustain'' the National Guard and Reserve ``on the course we're
on,'' said Arnold Punaro, chairman of the 13-member Commission on the
National Guard and Reserves, established by Congress in 2005.

``The Department of Defense is not adequately equipping the National Guard
for its domestic missions,'' the commission report said. It faulted the
Pentagon for a lack of budgeting for ``civil support'' for domestic
emergencies, criticizing what it called the ``flawed assumption'' that as
long as the military is prepared to fight a major war, it is ready to
respond to a disaster or emergency at home.

Army National Guard units in the United States have on average about 50
percent of their authorized stock of dual-use equipment, meaning gear needed
both for fighting wars and domestic missions, according to a recent
Government Accountability Office report. The National Guard estimates it
would require $38 billion for equipment to restore domestic Army and Air
units to full readiness. The Army has budgeted $21 billion to augment guard
equipment through 2011.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the use of U.S. military
reservists has sharply escalated, from about 12.7 million days of service in
2001 to an estimated 63 million in 2006. The current increase of U.S. troops
in Iraq is expected to require the accelerated call-up of as many as four
National Guard combat brigades beginning early next year, as part of an
effort to relieve the strain on active-duty brigades, which are now spending
as much time in combat as at home.

But while the selected reserves make up more than one-third of the total
U.S. military, they receive only 3 percent of the equipment funding and 8
percent of the Defense Department budget, the report said.

National Guard units deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have been required to
leave behind large quantities of gear in the combat zone. Partly as a
result, Guard units in the United States grew increasingly hollow, with 88
percent now so poorly equipped that they are rated ``not ready'' to deploy,
the report said, citing Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard
Bureau. A National Guard chart showed that 45 percent of the Air National
Guard is also ``not ready.''

To help address such problems and increase the authority of the reserves,
the commission called for the chief of the National Guard Bureau to be
elevated one rank to four-star general. But in commenting on legislation
known as the National Guard Empowerment Act, the commission disagreed with a
proposal to make the head of the National Guard a member of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, in part, it said, because it would complicate the chain of
command.

The commission also called for granting governors more power to handle
emergencies, including allowing them to command not only National Guard
forces but also federal troops responding to emergencies in their states.

The commission is to complete a final report by January 2008.

Couldn't the US at least train its troops properly to do their jobs before sending them over?

If it's anything like Afghanistan for the UK, they'll be sending over 18 and 19 year olds with a lot of training on how to shoot the crap out of people, and very little training for anything else.

Which would be "a bit crap" to say the least.


Instead, sending troops with language abilities over would be really pretty great, because then you'd be winning hearts and minds, and in a place like Iraq, that's pretty important.

So less troops, but better trained ones. That'd be my solution.

I'll just throw this out there...



http://www.exile.ru/2007-February-23/the_modocs_a_beautiful_little_war.html


...so yeah, you can guess what I think.

Hmm... I hadn't thought of it like that. Although that does make perfect sense.

i could go into this try 2 be smart show u a whole bunch of facts but that is not what this forum asks. it asks about wether more troops 2 Iraq would be a good thing or not. I guess we just hav to ask ourselves if military involvement has achieved what Americans where lead 2 believe would be achieved and if the world as a whole is happy with what has been done already. After doing this and only after can we then determine wether or not it would be a good idea 2 send even more armed troops 2 Iraq. This obviously without mentioning like a few guys above me said the resources from which bush is going 2 get these troops i mean we all know he likes 2 pull a lot of bull out of his ass but hundreds of re-inforcement troops i think would be a harder trick even for him. Although having said that the guy did manage 2 fund 2 wars at the same time behind a false pretence and manage 2 stay in power after cheating his way TO THE HIGHEST POSITION!!!! :P. all in all the truth of the matter is it doesnt matter what we want because its BUSH no vote that says no no matter how many people say no if in the end he wants to send them u know he will find a way to do so!

fyi my opinion? i think its time they came home.

Yes, send more troops to Iraq, that'll solve your problems. In fact, send all the troops to Iraq. And the police too.
Mwahahaha, mwahahahahahaha
*strokes a white cat*

i could go into this try 2 be smart

I stopped reading here.

Their not my countrymen, so I don't care.

Spell right, countryman.
They're = they are.

i could go into this try 2 be smart show u a whole bunch of facts but that is not what this forum asks. it asks about wether more troops 2 Iraq would be a good thing or not. I guess we just hav to ask ourselves if military involvement has achieved what Americans where lead 2 believe would be achieved and if the world as a whole is happy with what has been done already. After doing this and only after can we then determine wether or not it would be a good idea 2 send even more armed troops 2 Iraq. This obviously without mentioning like a few guys above me said the resources from which bush is going 2 get these troops i mean we all know he likes 2 pull a lot of bull out of his ass but hundreds of re-inforcement troops i think would be a harder trick even for him. Although having said that the guy did manage 2 fund 2 wars at the same time behind a false pretence and manage 2 stay in power after cheating his way TO THE HIGHEST POSITION!!!! :P. all in all the truth of the matter is it doesnt matter what we want because its BUSH no vote that says no no matter how many people say no if in the end he wants to send them u know he will find a way to do so!

fyi my opinion? i think its time they came home.

I'm neither a regular nor a veteran here. Wiser heads than mine ignore rubbish like that, but I am a digger in rubbish. I find valuable things in rubbish, so I readed your post in it's entirety.

You misspelled "were." I bolded it so you could see your mistake. Everything else is just fine.

EDIT(2) : Yeah, also "whether." I hate the spelling of that word, and use "howsoever" wherever appropriate. "If" works often, too.

What ever it takes to guarantee victory!!!! These boys are so lucky that they get to kill Arabs. I have been wanting to do it all my life. I hope I can get into this war and bag me som A-rab SOBs! Yeehahhhhh!

Beieve it or not I am not a Troll. I also do not say Yeehahhhhh to much but I do identify with that Slim Pickens dude in Dr. Strangelove. You know, the Texan that put on a cowboy hat and rode the nuke on its way down to the USSR.

I hate commies and anti-Israeli and American Arabs!

These are just 2200 military police. We need them to control the thousands and thousands of insurgents and foreign fighters (I love that term) we're going to capture in the next few months during the Surge. Gad, it makes my womanly loins just tingle to think of all those boys surging away over there!

:rolleyes:

no pull all the troops out after watching insurgents made propaganda video of troop vehicles in Iraq being attacked i say get the fuck out of there

These are just 2200 military police. We need them to control the thousands and thousands of insurgents and foreign fighters (I love that term) we're going to capture in the next few months during the Surge. Gad, it makes my womanly loins just tingle to think of all those boys surging away over there!

:rolleyes:

According to this, some of them just want to surge on the first thing they punch in the back of the head......and don't seem too fussy about whethers its on base or off either.

With the increased number of women serving in the US military, something else is on the rise, too: rape and sexual assault by their male comrades. To make matters worse, female soldiers say they can’t trust the US military to protect them.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/08/1443232

Perhaps those 2,200 are to keep the troops safe from the troops.....

According to this, some of them just want to surge on the first thing they punch in the back of the head......and don't seem too fussy about whethers its on base or off either.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/08/1443232

Perhaps those 2,200 are to keep the troops safe from the troops.....

Hmm ... you could be right.

According to this, some of them just want to surge on the first thing they punch in the back of the head......and don't seem too fussy about whethers its on base or off either.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/08/1443232

Perhaps those 2,200 are to keep the troops safe from the troops.....

so that on the rise and so is the mental scars left from going there

Bah to Bush.




That's right, bah him to the bloody bowels of hell!

Violence is the answer to everything. If it's not working, then you're not using enough of it.

Violence is the answer to everything. If it's not working, then you're not using enough of it.

What, the first size wasn't big enough?

Violence is certainly an answer to everything, though I doubt it's the answer. And in a very simplistic way, this typifies the Bush policy towards the rest of the world. Short of shooting bullets, we'll just smirk and have our running-dog commentators like Rush and Ann call you names.

At the same time, we need a draft to massively increase the number of troops to enforce the rule of law.

ah, yes: the 'd' word.

I can think of no faster way to bring the war to a quick end.

you think public support is low now? wait until sons and daughters, husbands and wives are stolen from their families and thrust into the path of enemy bullets and bombs.

I guarantee that the troops come hope the moment a congressman has a child shipped into the fray.

though the odds are slim, I can't wait to see the delicious irony when one of the Bush girls has their name drawn out of the hat.

Violence is the answer to everything. If it's not working, then you're not using enough of it.

Clearly. Maybe if we just kill off all those pesky Iraqis than there will be peace. We can settle honest-to-God Americans there and make it the 51st state. Only then will there be peace...

Or we could recognize that we aren't going to be able to use our military to forcibly pacify Iraq. But I suppose this is asking for too much.

At the same time, we need a draft to massively increase the number of troops to enforce the rule of law. This could be paid for by removing the social security contribution cap and removing the wage earnings link..
Yes... what a great idea... urmm...

Are you quite sure that's going to be popular with the general populace?

Clearly. Maybe if we just kill off all those pesky Iraqis than there will be peace. We can settle honest-to-God Americans there and make it the 51st state. Only then will there be peace...

Or we could recognize that we aren't going to be able to use our military to forcibly pacify Iraq. But I suppose this is asking for too much.

John Brunner used that in his Stand on Zanzibar. The US had added a new state of Islandia, the Philippines, I believe, so that it could fight communism there under the aegis of a domestic insurgency. So, yeah, we have however many Iraqis as is needed petition to become a state, Congress passes the legislation right quick, then all that bombing and what-not is a direct attack on US soil and we can go pound the shit out of them. I'm surprised the White House hasn't floated that one around the conservative think-tanks. :D

Clearly. Maybe if we just kill off all those pesky Iraqis than there will be peace. We can settle honest-to-God Americans there and make it the 51st state. Only then will there be peace...

That's what the Romans did, and they lasted for 1200 years

And I'm a MP in the US Army, So I guess I'll be going overthere :)

And I'm a MP in the US Army, So I guess I'll be going overthere :)

I don't think we're sending every MP, but if you do go, watch yourself, okay?

John Brunner used that in his Stand on Zanzibar. The US had added a new state of Islandia, the Philippines, I believe, so that it could fight communism there under the aegis of a domestic insurgency. So, yeah, we have however many Iraqis as is needed petition to become a state, Congress passes the legislation right quick, then all that bombing and what-not is a direct attack on US soil and we can go pound the shit out of them. I'm surprised the White House hasn't floated that one around the conservative think-tanks. :D

Hmmm. It would mean that the troops would have to stay to protect American territory. They'd never leave! :eek:

That's what the Romans did, and they lasted for 1200 years

My ancient history is a bit sketchy but I thought that the Romans kept the empire stable by moving populations from one end of the nation to the other to keep the chance of insurrection down.

Apparently so. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6429131.stm)

Thoughts?

You've got to be kidding.

ah, yes: the 'd' word.

I can think of no faster way to bring the war to a quick end.

you think public support is low now? wait until sons and daughters, husbands and wives are stolen from their families and thrust into the path of enemy bullets and bombs.

I guarantee that the troops come hope the moment a congressman has a child shipped into the fray.

though the odds are slim, I can't wait to see the delicious irony when one of the Bush girls has their name drawn out of the hat.

Except that females are exempt from Selective Service, they don't even register so there's no database to even hold a draft of females.

I really think we have enough troops. All we need to do is do the samething what we did in South Korea! And also a lot of teenagers think going to war is all like a video game the play in their PS2 or Nintendo Wii's; no its not, once they actually reach the point where they are going to die(unless they're not going to), they will realize fighting a war in a video game is nothing compared to fighting a war in real life. Some people may come home and be thinked as "War Heroes". They might be, and they might not be!

Except that females are exempt from Selective Service, they don't even register so there's no database to even hold a draft of females.

What they need is a special draft. One that selects from the children of those who vote for war.

Clearly. Maybe if we just kill off all those pesky Iraqis than there will be peace. We can settle honest-to-God Americans there and make it the 51st state. Only then will there be peace...

Or we could recognize that we aren't going to be able to use our military to forcibly pacify Iraq. But I suppose this is asking for too much.
I think what was meant is that more conflicts throughout history have been resolved through naked force than by any other factor. And force is violence, the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived.

As for killing the Iraqi people and claiming the nation as the 51st state, it would bring about lasting peace. Not sure which smiley is most appropriate for me to follow that statement with so feel free to fill it in should you quote it.

The insurgents only think we are staying there permanently. If we officialy made Iraq U.S territory they would go crazy. We would need the draft to have maybe something in the range of 500 000 men to go there to attempt to take out the insurgents... the idea of a U.S state in the middle of the middle east is amusing, but knowing the President, it probably certain.

Apparently so. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6429131.stm)

Thoughts?

A great move to get more people killed (US troops, UK troops, Iraqi people).
Also a booster for uprising and terrorism. :rolleyes:
I'm sure that Al-Qaida members are already toasting.

Their not my countrymen, so I don't care.

Same here. I'm not Jewish or communist or Gypsy etc, so I don't give a fuck about the holocaust victims.

:rolleyes:

I don't think we're sending every MP, but if you do go, watch yourself, okay?

Lets put it this way, My unit hasn't gone yet, and the MP corps in the US army isn't all that big. 2200 is a huge percentage.

Couldn't the US at least train its troops properly to do their jobs before sending them over?

If it's anything like Afghanistan for the UK, they'll be sending over 18 and 19 year olds with a lot of training on how to shoot the crap out of people, and very little training for anything else.

Which would be "a bit crap" to say the least.


Instead, sending troops with language abilities over would be really pretty great, because then you'd be winning hearts and minds, and in a place like Iraq, that's pretty important.

So less troops, but better trained ones. That'd be my solution.

Pfft. Rubbish. It is far better to have a hick with an itchy trigger finger and two weeks of training than a translator with several years of training, but happens to be gay. Didn't you hear, training is not nearly as important as your sexuality in the military.

OK. Who here will lie for my conscientious objector status?

I'm in training as a linguist at DLI - I'm not in Arabic, but most of my buddies are.
You know where they're going as fast as we can crank 'em out, here? The friggin' sandbox. Than includes the Airmen, the Marines, and the Soldiers all. It's not that we aren't sending trained troops, we are; we just don't have enough of them. It takes almost two years to train a cryptological linguist, more for the Air Force Airborne linguists and Army and Marine interrogators. And that's if they don't get recycled due to difficulties in learning the language.

Ok really, what has to happen to get through the thick skulls in charge here. Really, Is it not clear that America is going to lose this war. We are not going to win. Get over it. We've lost, move on. What needs to happen? Do we need a Dien Bien Phu like the French did? or do we need another Tet? or do we need to expand the war into other countries till we finnally get our royal asses kicked? cuz eventually the worlds gonna get tired of our ignorance and hard headed ways and bitch slap us back into our place.

Their not my countrymen, so I don't care.

There not mine either, but i care for them.

Can't help but wonder if there would even have been an invasion
if a prerequisite for an aggressive war by the US required a referendum there
to pass an extra tax to cover the cost of war only ending when occupation
ended and needing to be renewed each year until then.

ahthough the odds are slim, I can't wait to see the delicious irony when one of the Bush girls has their name drawn out of the hat.

Would never happen. Children of politicians get special immunity and privileges while nobodies have to go through the grinder and get killed. Strom Thurmond's illegitimate daughter certainly never felt the burn of segregation and racism and the song Fortunate Son had a distinct and true message behind it.

Ok really, what has to happen to get through the thick skulls in charge here. Really, Is it not clear that America is going to lose this war. We are not going to win. Get over it. We've lost, move on. What needs to happen? Do we need a Dien Bien Phu like the French did? or do we need another Tet? or do we need to expand the war into other countries till we finnally get our royal asses kicked? cuz eventually the worlds gonna get tired of our ignorance and hard headed ways and bitch slap us back into our place.

With our superior technology and "moral cause" no one in Washington is ever going to believe that we will be defeated by a group of ratty dirty Ay-rabs. The belief will be if we tough it out than eventually we will wear out the extremists. Apparently they think we will somehow kill them all and they will never be replaced and Iraq will turn into some kind of peaceful place. But being delusional is a common ailment among politicians, can't really be surprised about this.

Pfft. Rubbish. It is far better to have a hick with an itchy trigger finger and two weeks of training than a translator with several years of training, but happens to be gay. Didn't you hear, training is not nearly as important as your sexuality in the military.

an this is why i don't want to work next to US troops as they more likely to shot me or call in a air strike or a artillery one right on top of you

There not mine either, but i care for them.

Well I was actually referring to the US troops going over there.

an this is why i don't want to work next to US troops as they more likely to shot me or call in a air strike or a artillery one right on top of you
http://i.somethingawful.com/goldmine/02-04-2003/Iridium-1.jpg

http://i.somethingawful.com/goldmine/02-04-2003/Iridium-1.jpg

no he called the air strike on himself there was no Friendly Fire

My brother is joining because he said:

"It's better to join than get drafted."

I replied:

"and you picked the Marines lol"

Ok really, what has to happen to get through the thick skulls in charge here. Really, Is it not clear that America is going to lose this war. We are not going to win. Get over it. We've lost, move on. What needs to happen? Do we need a Dien Bien Phu like the French did? or do we need another Tet? or do we need to expand the war into other countries till we finnally get our royal asses kicked? cuz eventually the worlds gonna get tired of our ignorance and hard headed ways and bitch slap us back into our place.

Tet was a gamble that failed for Giap, it was a strategic and military victory for the USA and ARVN, BUT it was a political disaster. It's all about perception.