Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 5/11/2004 10:34:11 PM EST
That place is totally out of control and you can't reasonably expect so few troops to hold down the peace and kick the crap out of terrorists. When will Bush f*cking listen to someone and send more troops? He's screwing up.
Link Posted: 5/11/2004 10:38:25 PM EST
Ahh another of CNNs teat sucking mental midgets.

Iraq is NOT out of control.
We conquered Fallujah, we are conquering Karbala and Najaf as we speak. We have taken very few casualties in either operation.

The only people who keep repeating otherwise are CNN and MSNBC. And they do so in blatant defiance of the facts.
Link Posted: 5/11/2004 10:43:29 PM EST
I saw an interview with one of the commanding generals, he said we don't need anymore soldiers, we need better intelligence in order to focus our strenghts into that area. He said that Bush will give him whatever troops he need, but at the moment he doesn't need anymore,.
Link Posted: 5/11/2004 10:45:54 PM EST
you're kidding right? Even the troops that are there say they need more. Sending more would show just how strong our will is, show that we are committed to finishing, increase our visible/security presence, and increase the security for our own troops. I can't believe not only do you think otherwise but that anyone who does think more troops are needed must be some mindless media sh*t dump.
Link Posted: 5/11/2004 10:48:25 PM EST
PS: we need more aggressive policies and actions too. I once had a conversation with a very educated arab formally from Saudi and he said, and I quote "the only thing those people understand is force"
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 12:49:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Ahh another of CNNs teat sucking mental midgets.

Iraq is NOT out of control.
We conquered Fallujah, we are conquering Karbala and Najaf as we speak. We have taken very few casualties in either operation.

The only people who keep repeating otherwise are CNN and MSNBC. And they do so in blatant defiance of the facts.



I don't know you, so pardon me if I question how you can be such an expert on things going on in Iraq right now. Even a soldier returning from Iraq wouldn't have a good handle on the big picture.

And as for sending more troops over there, you better enlist & volunteer for Iraq duty before you go volunteering any more of our young men to go die for you.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 12:52:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By norman74:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Ahh another of CNNs teat sucking mental midgets.

Iraq is NOT out of control.
We conquered Fallujah, we are conquering Karbala and Najaf as we speak. We have taken very few casualties in either operation.

The only people who keep repeating otherwise are CNN and MSNBC. And they do so in blatant defiance of the facts.



I don't know you, so pardon me if I question how you can be such an expert on things going on in Iraq right now. Even a soldier returning from Iraq wouldn't have a good handle on the big picture.

And as for sending more troops over there, you better enlist & volunteer for Iraq duty before you go volunteering any more of our young men to go die for you.



Well said Norman.

Personnaly I am tired of hearing soldiers critisizing this war. They are grunts not generals. They shoulkd do their jobs and let the generals do theirs.

Sgtar15
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 1:25:58 AM EST
Rather than send more, unleash the ones there.
Ya think we would have learned after Viet Nam that a "limited" war
is a waste of time, and troops.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 1:46:10 AM EST
Forget more troops. We need more FLYBOYS to operate more AIRPLANE THINGYS to drop MORE BADA-BOOMS. GET IT
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 2:11:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bobby_the_Hun:
Forget more troops. We need more FLYBOYS to operate more AIRPLANE THINGYS to drop MORE BADA-BOOMS. GET IT



ding ding ding


get the troops outta there. then bomb the shit outta the place. level the country. turn it into a glass factory.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 3:52:24 AM EST
More troops means more targets. More supply convoys, more targets.

GunLvr
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 6:33:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/12/2004 6:33:57 AM EST by Langadune]
We already have around 150,000 there....right? More isn't the answer. Having even more in the country won't accomplish anything as already mentioned here. Or generals are not currently engaged in all out warfare against the entire population. If that becomes our strategy... the number of troops and (more importantly) the quality and quantity of equipment will be sufficient to the task.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 6:46:13 AM EST
If I remember right - wasn't our answer to Vietnam to send more troops, more guns, more bombs? You know - fight a war of attritition against people who fight useing maneuver warfare and unconventional means? Yea - makes a lot of sense - lets brain dump all the lessons we supposedly learned from previous conflicts and fight this thing like a UN peacekeeping mission..... Yes, I'd love to bomb the shit out of Iraq........... But fighting like Schwarzkof did in the first Gulf War will keep us there FOREVER. If we want to win this thing, they need to stop fighting this bullsht like its Bosnia for Christsakes. Which they are. Some thanks probably due to 1st Armored Division which I used to be a part of. But nothing will change - it never does when you have pampered generals running the show and spaced out politicians running diplomacy. Once we as a collective nation remove our collective head from our collective ass and start fighting a war without rules, without bullshit policies, without external politics to deal with - only THEN will we win. Throwing bodies at the fire is not a solution. And I don't think anyone here is in a position to offer up their neighbor's sons and daughters to join the carnage. As I said before, its not about raw numbers. We thought we were winning Vietnam based on body-count. No - we won parts of the Vietnam war based on using the right tactics for the right mission.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 6:50:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By norman74:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Ahh another of CNNs teat sucking mental midgets.

Iraq is NOT out of control.
We conquered Fallujah, we are conquering Karbala and Najaf as we speak. We have taken very few casualties in either operation.

The only people who keep repeating otherwise are CNN and MSNBC. And they do so in blatant defiance of the facts.



I don't know you, so pardon me if I question how you can be such an expert on things going on in Iraq right now. Even a soldier returning from Iraq wouldn't have a good handle on the big picture.

And as for sending more troops over there, you better enlist & volunteer for Iraq duty before you go volunteering any more of our young men to go die for you.



Uh, Norman, Armdlbrl is not the one who called for more troops.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 7:03:15 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/12/2004 7:47:04 AM EST by Max_Mike]

you're kidding right? Even the troops that are there say they need more. Sending more would show just how strong our will is, show that we are committed to finishing, increase our visible/security presence, and increase the security for our own troops. I can't believe not only do you think otherwise but that anyone who does think more troops are needed must be some mindless media sh*t dump.


You cannot send what you don’t have. THERE ARE NO MORE TROOPS TO SEND.

Half the US Army and Marine Corps are committed the other half are either just back from theater, refitting, or reorganizing. We cut TEN divisions from the US Military between 1991 and 2000. Our Military is at least 3 divisions under strength and they is NO short term fix.

To sustain a combat deployment you really need a 2 to1 ratio. For each unit deployed you need 2 units stateside. TO EVEN CONTINUE OUR CURRENT LEVEL OF COMBAT DEPOLYMENT OUR MILITARY IN 1/3 UNDER STRENGHT.

THERE ARE NO MORE TROOPS TO SEND. And if there were that is not the answer… quit watching CNN.

WE WILL EITHER FINISH THE JOB WITH AVALIBLE RESOURCES OR WE WILL WITHDRAW… that is your choice not send troops that don’t exist.


More troops means more targets. More supply convoys, more targets.


BINGO…
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 7:52:14 AM EST
Remember Col. Kurtz in Apocalypse Now saying he could win the Vietnam War with one-quarter as many troops if they were the right troops. Wasn't his statement base on something Hackworth said??

GunLvr
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 8:04:42 AM EST
The country is NOT out of control. There are a few really bad areas. More troops are not needed.

What is needed is specific locations of targets for the forces that are there.

Link Posted: 5/12/2004 8:05:07 AM EST
I doubt that quote by Colonel Kurtz was based on something Hackworth actually said. But it goes without saying that Colonel Kurtz was closer to reality then he is accredited in the movie. Everything I've ever read indicated that overall - SF, SEALs, Force Recon, and MACV-SOG was winning the war in Vietnam against incredible odds - taking significant losses themselves - but they were fighting the right way and winning. I seriously wonder if the DOD has figured out how to properly employ our special operations units. I also wonder why we can't have a tougher, better trained military. Oh wait - eight years of Klinton on an already laid back peacetime military...........Plus far too much emphasis on attrition style warfare - we need to focus on those tactics common in maneuver warfare and use our forces more unconventionally.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 8:28:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Ahh another of CNNs teat sucking mental midgets.

Iraq is NOT out of control.
We conquered Fallujah, we are conquering Karbala and Najaf as we speak. We have taken very few casualties in either operation.

The only people who keep repeating otherwise are CNN and MSNBC. And they do so in blatant defiance of the facts.




We have been retaking these cities for weeks now. I also do not consider 150+ reported dead in April to be "very few casualties". Now parts of Baghdad are under the fundamentalists control. Iraq seems to be going from bad to worse. I personally think more troops would certianly help the security situation.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 8:57:15 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/12/2004 9:01:15 AM EST by MatthewDaugherty]
Max hit it on the nose.There are not a lot of troops to throw around. We are in a sticky situation over there. When we defeated Sadam and opened up the Cracker Jacks we found a can of worms and no prize. Now we are fighting a bunch of twisted brainwashed people(muslims in general) who see us just as bad or worse than Sadam. I'm sure we will be fighting muslims to end of time now. We can when militarily and are as we have been. To win militarily you have to take and hold ground. The road mines are something it seems difficult to deter and i believe that is where most of the casualties have come from.

I totally support Bush's leadership and our troops in the war. War is not fought with nerf weapons so there is no math formula to base ones support of war due to casualties. Some people lose support it seems after a magic number of casualties is reached.


C=casualties

C=<0 (singing lets give peace a chance, while we have every right to go turn some people into crispy critters)

War starts

C=0 (I guess I support the war)

C=>0<100 (oh those poor servicemen and women they died for a good cause)

C=>=100<500 (I wonder if it was the right thing to do to go to war)

C=>=500 (We should get pull all our troops out our leadership has failed us)

This is how it seems the people who no nothing on the cost of war, knowledge on military matters, history, or have some euthopian left wing flower up the ass Kumbaya(spelling) singing ideology.

I support action in Iraq as long as it takes to set up some semblance of a new government and stay to some point after. We all know( us that understand history) what will happen once we pull out. They can kill each other as long as they want once we leave, but if they support terrorism or restart producing weapons of mass destruction they deserve to get flattened.
Top Top