Thread: Quagmire....

the army is planning to maintain current troop levels in iraq until at least 2010.

jesus christ.

it's going to take even bigger bags of cash to keep hoodwinking 'poor' kids into signing up for this mess.

but, i suppose it gives sk, boonie, rdn, eliminated, etc... more of an opportunity to encourage their kids to enlist.

oh, that's right.....dying in iraq is for other people's kids, not theirs.

Iraq troop levels may hold until 2010 - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

^ the troops in Iraq until 2010 is all hype.

They won't be there in 2010.

This is basically a contingency plan for the future. Brought by....Gen. Peter Pace....who we now know....does not like the Bush administration and know that Iraq is down the toilet.

The notion just riles up the public.

And it's quite conventient to be stated now....3 weeks before the election.

Thanks, Peter. He's on our side, Ray.

I was and remain opposed to the U.S. involvement in Iraq. My husband is a former Army infantry officer, and we discussed the troop levels/2010 plans this morning.

Based on what he said, I'd caution anyone against jumping to conclusions that this actually meant that a decision had been made to maintain those troop levels -- it is contingency planning (something Rumsfeld wouldn't even listen to at the beginning of the war, since it was supposed to be "quick in and quick out" -- hah!).

Anyway, my husband said that there almost certainly is a contingency plan for the invasion and occupation of North Korea on someone's desk in the Pentagon, along with such plans for numerous other countries -- take your pick...Nigeria, Sudan, etc. It's an ongoing function of Army operations, always has been and always will be.

Didn't change my opinion of the miasma overall, but put the current news in perspective.

The coalition of the pathetic might just decrease by yet another country:

U.K. army head said to seek Iraq pullout.

Britain's new army chief called for a withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, warning that the military's presence there only exacerbates security problems, according to an interview published Thursday.

U.K. army head said to seek Iraq pullout - Yahoo! News

At least British officers in command have some balls.

Originally Posted by surasak

The coalition of the pathetic might just decrease by yet another country:

U.K. army head said to seek Iraq pullout.

Britain's new army chief called for a withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, warning that the military's presence there only exacerbates security problems, according to an interview published Thursday.

U.K. army head said to seek Iraq pullout - Yahoo! News

At least British officers in command have some balls.

Sounds to me like he's basically saying the British can't handle the job and aren't qualified for the mission.

I'm sure he's well intentioned bloke but it's unlikely he'd have ever risen above a staff job in the world's finest Army.

IRT General Pace ... fiercely loyal to Donald Rumsfield.

Funny, but the 14 US intelligence agencies came to the same conclusion.
Is it possible that they're right?

Clearly they aren't up to the job either.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

IRT General Pace ... fiercely loyal to Donald Rumsfield.

That's not the case anymore.

Ask Gen. John Jones.

[quote=surasak] U.K. army head said to seek Iraq pullout.


In all fairness you really should post today that he has now said his remarks were taken out of context.

^^^
Why will you be logging off permanently SK?

The UK military officials statements did make sense. He said the British forces were looked at "just as another tribe," and that their presence motivated attacks in many areas.

But this focus on the UK and US forces is on the wrong element: the military.

People needs to stop focusin on the military and start focusin on the political.

On both fronts, it's too late.

It's only a matter of time.

Bush's False Choice on Iraq

No matter how many times he says it, fighting "over there" still doesn't prevent attacks here.

October 12, 2006


AT HIS NEWS CONFERENCE Wednesday, President Bush expressed not once but three times his view that if the U.S. does not defeat the terrorists "over there" in Iraq, it will have to fight them here in the United States. This crude formulation is tiresome and insulting to Americans' intelligence.

This is insane. And it's been said by him many times. Sunnis are coming to the U.S. to fight against the U.S. because of the Americans' support of Nuri Al-Maliki and Sayyid Muqtada Al-Sadr?

"I firmly believe that the American people understand that this is different from other wars because in this war, if we were to leave early, before the job is done, the enemy will follow us here," Bush said. This conjures up improbable images of Shiite death squads and Sunni insurgents stuffing bomb-making manuals into their backpacks and booking flights to LAX while U.S. troops march out of Baghdad.


<ahref="http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/3344-15267-1944-6?mpt=5215876"> http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/bn/3...-6?mpt=5215876
There are good reasons not to withdraw from Iraq hastily. But Bush's assertion about a good offense being the best defense undermines his own credibility.

With the "unity" government in Iraq dangerously factionalized, the risk that the country may soon be engulfed in an all-out battle among Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish elements remains high — even if U.S. troops stay. If they depart quickly, leaving behind an unstable government unable to keep the peace even in Baghdad, a savage sectarian war over territory, oil and power could result. Iran, Turkey and other neighbors could become embroiled in a conflagration....

The deliberate repetition of a shameless canard just before an election does not contribute to this thoughtful debate. Indeed, Bush's formulation could lead to a false sense of complacency. Fighting the terrorists "over there" does not necessarily make us safer "over here." This is not to say that there is no relation at all between Iraq's fate and the threat of terrorism to the U.S. But the relationship is not as simplistic as the president describes it. Pretending these two issues are part of the same problem trivializes them both.

Link: Bush's False Choice on Iraq - Los Angeles Times

^
i've noticed a few of these false choices in this section of the forum recently....

'either you support the bush policy in iraq, or you're a terrorist lover'.

anyway, 53 US military dead so far this month.

who thinks it will go to 100?

or even break the record of 137 back in nov. '04?


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/15/wo...rtner=homepage

Delighted are you, raycarey? - and with the will of Allah the Compassionate and Merciful it'll hit triple digits, right?

C'mon, let's have the hollow outrage.

IMO the concept of allah is just as absurd as jesus.

no, not delighted. but yes, i do believe that the more US troops that die, the sooner the US will make their inevitable pull out.

Originally Posted by raycarey

the more US troops that die, the sooner the US will make their inevitable pull out.

Only problem is, there's less and less GI's getting whacked over there of late. And no, I don't have the 'link' to prove that statement but y'all can turn on the news to get verification, eh?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Only problem is, there's less and less GI's getting whacked over there of late. And no, I don't have the 'link' to prove that statement but y'all can turn on the news to get verification, eh?

Absolutely False:

The numbers are increasing.

What is more significant is the number of injuries.

However....it does NOT matter how many more U.S. casualties and injuries there are.

There is no shortage of soldiers.

What is wearing down the U.S. in Iraq is:

public opinion

and many other things.

Is this the link you're looking for Boon Mee?

At the current rate of American troop deaths, almost four a day, October is on track to be the third-deadliest month of the entire conflict for the military, according to Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, an independent Web site that tracks war-related casualties. The two most deadly months coincided with major American offensives against entrenched guerrilla fighters.

Injuries:

From Sept. 28 to Oct. 11, 427 American troops were wounded, one of the worst two-week stretches of the war, according to Iraq Coalition Casualty Count. In all of September, 776 troops were wounded, the fourth-highest monthly total since the American invasion, according to the Web site.

And....

According to Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, which collates statistics distributed in Pentagon news releases, the number of American deaths in Baghdad has sharply increased since the American-led crackdown began in early August.

Link: 5 Americans Killed in Iraq, Bringing Month’s Toll to 53 - New York Times

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

there's less and less GI's getting whacked over there of late

you're incredibly misinformed..

Ahem - Ray, when replying to one of BM's post, you can safely leave that bit out - it goes without saying.....

Boon Me is nothing more than a SK clone with a little bit more brain and a sense of humor, but as much misinformed as the original, which is a shame because if he wasn't, he would become a great liberal

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Boon Me is nothing more than a SK clone with a little bit more brain and a sense of humor, but as much misinformed as the original, which is a shame because if he wasn't, he would become a great liberal

You know, Butterfly I'm sure you're a nice fella, and the katoeys down at the bath house love you, but you're as full of shit as a constipated elephant.

^ hey dude, I was insulting Boon Me, not you, you should be honored to be compared with him

I tell you what, when you retire and when Boon comes moving to Thailand later this year, I will take you two for a drink at my favorite ladyboy bar, Obsession, on my "reserved" table and we will all have a great night with the boys. How does that sound ?

I was just trying to prove to you that I can be funny

This place cracks me up.