And it will die down shortly before the election, but right now, its gonna be like 2004 again for a little while. Get ready to see stupid headlines and hear "I told you so's" from people that dont know anything.
The Surge™ seemed to have worked for awhile and things seemed all and well, but yeah things seem to be escalating again. Any idea why?
troop level reductions. the surge was an influx in combat troops. when I was in country, 60% of the soldiers in theater were actual ground troops. We had pretty much the same troop levels in 2004 that we did last year, except for that fact. Now, that number is much higher, but, we still need more soldiers on the ground. We never went in with enough in the first place. Now, brigades are starting to leave. bad. As much as I dont feel like redploying I know that the only way to peacefully allow the Iraqi gov't to control their country, is too have more troops.
They said they're expecting increased terrorist activity in Afghanistan aswell, it's pretty hot there right now. I agree on that there aren't enough troops there, and I wonder if the US is considering to get a draft some day - or when the european countries are seriously going to consider to help out
inane little opines
08 is going to be bloody
That's because the terrorist need the US troops there for continued employment .. they need a Prez that will keep our troops there. By ensuring death and destruction they might influence American voters.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
You forgot oil, you're only there because of oil.Kmarion wrote:
That's because the terrorist need the US troops there for continued employment .. they need a Prez that will keep our troops there. By ensuring death and destruction they might influence American voters.
inane little opines
Taliban spring offensives are as predictable as the sun rising in the East. It'll get bloody in Afghanistan, but it'll still be VERY one-sided.dayarath wrote:
They said they're expecting increased terrorist activity in Afghanistan aswell, it's pretty hot there right now. I agree on that there aren't enough troops there, and I wonder if the US is considering to get a draft some day - or when the european countries are seriously going to consider to help out
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
bloody for the taliban!
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
bloody for the taliban!
Yea that's working out great for us . Too bad oil production dropped like a rock once the war began. That tends to happen in War zones.dayarath wrote:
You forgot oil, you're only there because of oil.Kmarion wrote:
That's because the terrorist need the US troops there for continued employment .. they need a Prez that will keep our troops there. By ensuring death and destruction they might influence American voters.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
That's what I said.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
bloody for the taliban!
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I know, just firing for effect.FEOS wrote:
That's what I said.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
bloody for the taliban!
Thought that was firing an illum round there..GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I know, just firing for effect.FEOS wrote:
That's what I said.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
bloody for the taliban!
Don't you support a presidential candidate who has pledged to withdraw US troops from Iraq within a year and a half of his inauguration?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
troop level reductions. the surge was an influx in combat troops. when I was in country, 60% of the soldiers in theater were actual ground troops. We had pretty much the same troop levels in 2004 that we did last year, except for that fact. Now, that number is much higher, but, we still need more soldiers on the ground. We never went in with enough in the first place. Now, brigades are starting to leave. bad. As much as I dont feel like redploying I know that the only way to peacefully allow the Iraqi gov't to control their country, is too have more troops.
I dont support withdrawal from Iraq, but I didnt support invasion either. Whatever the chain of command does is acceptable by me, whether its clinton, mccain or obama.
It's not really a "surge" anyway. Whatever happened to "overwhelming force" from Gulf War I? I like that one much better.
I take it that wouldn't extend to orders to go door to door in Seattle and spray nerve gas into every home?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I dont support withdrawal from Iraq, but I didnt support invasion either. Whatever the chain of command does is acceptable by me, whether its clinton, mccain or obama.
nerve gas? thats not my MOS
He's right. This is:GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
nerve gas? thats not my MOS
We're both cross-trained in civilian killing, and conspiracy cover ups though.
Jews did 9/11.
This is my position as well.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I dont support withdrawal from Iraq, but I didnt support invasion either.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
The media and the government are often tied in how ignorant they are. It's hard to know who to trust when both of them are paid to only acknowledge the parts of reality that suit their needs and preconceptions.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Get ready to see stupid headlines and hear "I told you so's" from people that dont know anything.
but isn't this a contradiction ? How can one be against the invasion, yet be against withdrawal at the same time ?Spark wrote:
This is my position as well.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I dont support withdrawal from Iraq, but I didnt support invasion either.
Doesn't make sense to me, sorry.
I think the point is "Don't go in, but if you do, don't leave until the job is done."B.Schuss wrote:
but isn't this a contradiction ? How can one be against the invasion, yet be against withdrawal at the same time ?Spark wrote:
This is my position as well.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I dont support withdrawal from Iraq, but I didnt support invasion either.
Doesn't make sense to me, sorry.
You don't have to agree with going there in the first place, but now that you are there, it is not always the right thing to just up and leave.B.Schuss wrote:
but isn't this a contradiction ? How can one be against the invasion, yet be against withdrawal at the same time ?
Doesn't make sense to me, sorry.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)