WTF? (More troops in Iraq)

[SolitaryWalker]

Whats going on with Bush's attempt to send more troops to Iraq? How likely is he to be able to pull that off?

And if he is, what kind of troops will be going?

Say, if you are within the infantry unit on the U.S soil and have not stated clear that you wish to be in Combat, how likely are you to end up in Iraq within a month, or even say in the near future if Bush is to get his way?

[Jasz]

Whats going on with Bush's attempt to send more troops to Iraq? How likely is he to be able to pull that off?

And if he is, what kind of troops will be going?

Say, if you are within the infantry unit on the U.S soil and have not stated clear that you wish to be in Combat, how likely are you to end up in Iraq within a month, or even say in the near future if Bush is to get his way?

have fun in baghdad, see you in 12

[SolitaryWalker]

No no.... I am not in the army... this concerns a friend of mine who is a nurse... Not sure what kind of a program she is in right now... but she meets up with her army unit ... say once every two weekends..

I know that some airforces will be deployed first.. and the 2nd brigade... I think the 2nd brigade is stationed in Germany... so this suggests that ordinary U.S soldiers will be left in peace... but I am not sure... so.. my question is.... if you're an ordinary soldier on the U.S soil... in a non-combative role... say.. medic... nurse... cheif etc.... how likely are you to find yourself there soon..

Bush said that according to his plan thousands of troops will be informed that they are needed in Iraq... and almost all of them will be there within a month... So this probably means that those who are about to be deployed have already been trained for such missions... thus if you're an ordinary soldier on the U.S soil who has not stated a clear wish to be in Iraq... the odds are that you wont be going there... because you will need more than just one month to prepare... unless of course Bush plans on sending the 20000 incrementally as opposed all at the same time and be done with it by the end of the month..

[Jennywocky]

Whats going on with Bush's attempt to send more troops to Iraq? How likely is he to be able to pull that off?

And if he is, what kind of troops will be going?

How can you say such things?

Don't you remember -- he's a uniter, not a divider?

[Madrigal]

Considering the disasterous effects of Bush's occupation experiments in the Middle East, I'd say that US soldiers should be the least of our concerns.

Though whatever gets people to realize they're being fucked is fine by me.

[Schuyler]

http://securingamerica.com/stopthesurge

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/13220/2/Countdown-SC-Sac.mov/

[Jasz]

Whats going on with Bush's attempt to send more troops to Iraq? How likely is he to be able to pull that off?

And if he is, what kind of troops will be going?

Say, if you are within the infantry unit on the U.S soil and have not stated clear that you wish to be in Combat, how likely are you to end up in Iraq within a month, or even say in the near future if Bush is to get his way?

20,000 is the amount that is circulating, not clear what units.

[SolitaryWalker]

Considering the disasterous effects of Bush's occupation experiments in the Middle East, I'd say that US soldiers should be the least of our concerns.

Though whatever gets people to realize they're being fucked is fine by me.

Ok, what if one of the U.S soldier's in this case, a nurse is someone that we know personally, who currently serves part-time in the army in the U.S soil. Should we really be concerned about them getting shipped off?

[SolitaryWalker]

20,000 is the amount that is circulating, not clear what units.

20000 exactly how many is that? Say if you're within the 20000, do you already know that you will be, or may be shipped off? If you're a soldier on the U.S soil, can you be certain or know that it is highly likely that you wont be sent there?

How many troops are currently serving on the U.S soil? Are all 20000 going to come from the U.S? Or maybe some or even most of them from Units at other nations. Like the 2nd brigade is stationed in Germany.

So, if you're a soldier in the U.S army who is currently serving in the United States, how likely are you to find yourself in Iraq, when we consider that 20000 is the number, how likely are you , say as a nurse to find yourself within them?

[Madrigal]

Ok, what if one of the U.S soldier's in this case, a nurse is someone that we know personally, who currently serves part-time in the army in the U.S soil. Should we really be concerned about them getting shipped off?

Sure, why not? But if only people could get concerned before that, when all the atrocities are being committed.

[Jasz]

20000 exactly how many is that? Say if you're within the 20000, do you already know that you will be, or may be shipped off? If you're a soldier on the U.S soil, can you be certain or know that it is highly likely that you wont be sent there?

How many troops are currently serving on the U.S soil? Are all 20000 going to come from the U.S? Or maybe some or even most of them from Units at other nations. Like the 2nd brigade is stationed in Germany.

So, if you're a soldier in the U.S army who is currently serving in the United States, how likely are you to find yourself in Iraq, when we consider that 20000 is the number, how likely are you , say as a nurse to find yourself within them?

i am not sure. i would check the NPR site as they could have useful reports/ links.

[SolitaryWalker]

Hell, I undestand that the War was a mistake from the beginning. But, my question here is how are random people in the army who do not have a clear-cut desire to be in combat to wind up in Iraq now?

Should I be worried about this?

[Dr. Haight]

It's mostly a political strategy to gear up for the US Presidential election.

Pulling some semblance of success out of there, before the election, is crucial to a Republican presidential run.

On the other hand, this little mock Congressional vote against the troop deployment, that the Democrat's are gearing up for right now, is simply a counter strategy for the same purpose.

. . . anyway, that's how I see it.

[SolitaryWalker]

Ok... will anyone tell me how likely one as an ordinary U.S troop to wind up in Iraq before Bush is out of the office.


I dont care about this whole political farce right now...what are the odds of you getting shoved in there against your will? (That is if you're currently enrolled in the military now without a desire to be in combat)

[Dr. Haight]

I dont care about this whole political farce right now...:P

[PonderBee]

I dont care about this whole political farce right now...what are the odds of you getting shoved in there against your will? (That is if you're currently enrolled in the military now without a desire to be in combat)

Once you sign the contract you are in and can be deployed for any mission, at any time with very little notice. You give up your right to choose by joining. The folks in the Air Force generally have the safest missions as they are usually placed in very remote locations. The Navy - they're on the water, sitting out there on the water - but usually safe in this type of warfare. The Army and Marines account for the greatest number of the casualties and injured lists.

[Krill]

I dont care about this whole political farce right now...what are the odds of you getting shoved in there against your will? (That is if you're currently enrolled in the military now without a desire to be in combat)

You shouldn't enroll in the military unless you can just accept the risk of being deployed and buckle up.

We could argue all day about the ethics of the Iraq war and sending troops there, but your friend did sign a contract. "Against your will" is absurd outside of a draft.

[FranG]

Got bad news Seawolf

First off, more troops will be going to Iraq. That's a given the way this administration works (and the sellout Democrats who have the power to cut funding for the war but won't do it).

Secondly, everyone I know in the military has been to either Iraq, or somewhere in the middle east for logistical support for the troops in Iraq. My cousin is in the airforce; they sent him to Korea (this is off topic) for a year in the summer of 2002. He went over there and now he has seizures pretty frequently. Coincidence? Anyway back on topic, they kicked him out the airforce because of the seizures. He's married though and his wife just got sent to Kuwait on a 4 month assignment on Jan. 1. I also have an uncle who was just in Iraq in 2004 I think. Those are my only two relatives in the military in the military and they both went. Oh, also my girlfriend has a cousin (a young woman in her early 20s) and she's has a husband in Iraq right now. It seems like people I know or associate with who has any dealings with the military is in Iraq, close by Iraq, or is about to be sent over there. And on top of that, Lord Bush is about to send more troops over there.

[SolitaryWalker]

Ok, well perhaps he is going to send the Marines, the troops who have been training recently, and say the airforce first.

What about the medics and nurses? Are they as likely to end up their as the soldiers?

I assume that they dont send people on individual basis. Perhaps it would be more reasonable to think that they will send entire units.

What kind of units do nurses belong to?

Also, it seems to me that perhaps people who are training in the army all year around are more likely to be sent to Iraq than those like my friend who are just about to get off. She only has a year and a half to go and 3 years in reserves. And she only sees the unit once in a while. So perhaps there could be something to smile about here. Because, perhaps we could say that she now only serves part-time in the army, and this would make it less probable for her to get sent to Iraq than for someone who is much more involved in the military life.

Give me more feedback?

From the news I've been reading, the picture that I am getting is that people who have signed up speficially to go to Iraq will be deployed as soon as possible, and those who were about to leave will stay. Also, the airforces and the 2nd brigade will go for sure, or are about to go first. So, this perhaps means that common-place U.S military servants may just get lucky on this one?

Or are the foot soldiers who are generally not expected to be fighting, nurses, medics and chiefs on the same level as just about anybody who is in the army?

I mean... it seems to me that it would be more rational to assume that some troops like the Marines, air-force, and front line infantry people are more likely to go than nurses. But that is contingent upon what units they belong to?

Are nurses and doctors an entity of their own in the army? Or do they belong to some unit? Possibly a unit of infantry of some kind?

But nonetheless... it seems to me that if you're a nurse... you'll be unlikely to end up being in combat of any kind... so the chances are you'll be coming back in one pieces? Or are they expect to run onto the battlefield and pick troops up like certain medics would be?

[MacGuffin]

Time for a draft.

[SolitaryWalker]

Will anyone give me any more serious answers?

Suppose we say that everyone is fair game. How likely would you as an average on and off militant to be drafted right into Iraq. Especially if you're just over a year away from the end of your shift?

[Dr. Haight]

Will anyone give me any more serious answers?The Prez is going to address this tonight.

Good luck.

[ptGatsby]

Will anyone give me any more serious answers?

Suppose we say that everyone is fair game. How likely would you as an average on and off militant to be drafted right into Iraq. Especially if you're just over a year away from the end of your shift?


For an actual answer;

None of this matters. If they need the warm body, she goes, EOS. Chances are fairly good that she will go if more troops are called up. The odds are dependent on what they need (and I think they need plenty of medical units...) and their expierence.

Tangible numbers? Not possible. If she is military, not just natural guard or something similar, consider it good odds she'll go. Otherwise, I think only a shortage of a particular discipline is likely to go.

[SolitaryWalker]

I've talked to her today, things seem to be looking good. She said that she is in a passive unit of some kind. If things go as planned, it would be moving onto Iraq in five years, by the time she will be long gone.

Through-out all those times that troops were getting sent to Iraq, it has never even come close to her unit being deployed. She was hardly ever worried about it.

The only real threat here would be, is if somebody from a Unit that is training right not as we speak drops out, and they need a replacement nurse, they will take somebody from the Unit that is in next in line. But hers wont be next in line for a longggg time... So nothing to be worried about..

[SolitaryWalker]

For an actual answer;

None of this matters. If they need the warm body, she goes, EOS. Chances are fairly good that she will go if more troops are called up. The odds are dependent on what they need (and I think they need plenty of medical units...) and their expierence.

Tangible numbers? Not possible. If she is military, not just natural guard or something similar, consider it good odds she'll go. Otherwise, I think only a shortage of a particular discipline is likely to go.

I have a difficult time understanding why it is that so many of you people say that if Bush sends 20000 more people to Iraq, this necessarily means that if you're just a random soldier on the U.S soil you're probably going.

Thats just not true.

If you're on active duty, than yes, you should expect to find yourself there sooner or later, regardless of whether or not Bush is sending more troops in right now.

If you're on passive, you could only be called up there as a substitute for someone who dropped out of the active unit. Otherwise, your unit will not be deployed for 3-5 years.

[ptGatsby]

I have a difficult time understanding why it is that so many of you people say that if Bush sends 20000 more people to Iraq, this necessarily means that if you're just a random soldier on the U.S soil you're probably going.


It doesn't; I didn't say that.

I said IF they need warm bodies and IF they need her discipline, then she's going. My guesstimate is that with things the way they are over there, the probability of her discipline is in fair high demand and the US military is very stretched.



If you're on passive, you could only be called up there as a substitute for someone who dropped out of the active unit. Otherwise, your unit will not be deployed for 3-5 years.

You don't see how stretched the US military is. They have already called up reserves, extended active duty multiple times, ect. They are considering using foreigners (giving them citizenship!), mercenaries and have talked about the draft.

She's able, elligible, specialised and signed up. Rolling dice on those odds are not good, but I can't state anything more because I don't know the actual numbers behind everything.

[rainfall]

It doesn't; I didn't say that.

I said IF they need warm bodies and IF they need her discipline, then she's going. My guesstimate is that with things the way they are over there, the probability of her discipline is in fair high demand and the US military is very stretched.



You don't see how stretched the US military is. They have already called up reserves, extended active duty multiple times, ect. They are considering using foreigners (giving them citizenship!), mercenaries and have talked about the draft.

She's able, elligible, specialised and signed up. Rolling dice on those odds are not good, but I can't state anything more because I don't know the actual numbers behind everything.

Oh she's goin'. Say your goodbyes, seawolf.

[SolitaryWalker]

Its only 20,000. We dont even know if Bush could even get that many out.

What you're saying seemingly contradicts her claim that if her reserve draft is to go, it would probably go in no earlier than five years. Strange though, through-out all those times that Bush has been sending troops, if the picture really is as glum as you describe it, it is deeply puzzling why she hasnt been sent there a long time ago.

This suggests, as I hope, and this may well be wishful thinking on my part, that her Unit MUST BE VERY DEEEEEP IN RESERVES... because she doesnt seem to be worried about that at all... and never really was... and the troops that are getting rallied up seem to be mostly from the marines, airforce and the 2nd brigade... so the reserves... and passive duty ones are much less likely to go...

20000 that doesnt even sound like that many...

Most who were likely to go to Iraq.. seems to me have already been there at least once... she hasnt...

As far as the military being very stretched is concerned... I would guess it make more sense to say that individual nurses may get sent there one by one .... but the unit that was scheduled to go in about five years will probably not get sent as a whole..

Come on how bad could this be...? What the hell.. sending foreigners in there even whilst giving then citizenships and draft... how many troops does he need????

[rainfall]

Come on how bad could this be...? What the hell.. sending foreigners in there even whilst giving then citizenships and draft... how many troops does he need????
It actually could be pretty bad...
There're trained snipers that constantly pick off US cannon fodder... Err Troops everywhere. They need more meat there, NOW! There are shitloads of militant factions, and usa troops in middle. Btw why do you care? How "Friendly" are you anyways? Plus if she's just a medic, it's not like she'd be out in the field fighting, is it?

[slacker]

Btw why do you care? How "Friendly" are you anyways? Plus if she's just a medic, it's not like she'd be out in the field fighting, is it?

Perhaps he's really just afraid that he'll lose her to the local jihadi.

[SolitaryWalker]

Whats going on with Bush's attempt to send more troops to Iraq? How likely is he to be able to pull that off?

And if he is, what kind of troops will be going?

Say, if you are within the infantry unit on the U.S soil and have not stated clear that you wish to be in Combat, how likely are you to end up in Iraq within a month, or even say in the near future if Bush is to get his way?

From what I gather it seems to me that she wont be going. Unless someone can explain to me how those military Units function, your messages will be of very little or possibly of no help to me.

[FranG]

From what I gather it seems to me that she wont be going. Unless someone can explain to me how those military Units function, your messages will be of very little or possibly of no help to me.

Cool but you're talking like it's a legal game or something. You're talking logically and you don't logically see how she can go (although she is a nurse and they need them over there for the injured). But what this administration and government has shown over the last 5 years is irrationality. So don't expect them to do what makes sense,expect themto do what they want (and they can find a way legally as the laws have various escape clauses.

[SolitaryWalker]

I acknowledge that it is possible for her to go, however, that the chances of that happening seem to be low at this point.

It seems unlikely that the would just draw nurses in one by one.

Seems to me that they would be more likely to send the whole unit in, of which nurses are a part of.

[FranG]

Maybe true but I could also see a scenario where they select specific types of nurses from a department.

[MacGuffin]

We need a draft.

(edited the title for more description)

[nfinityi]

Time for a draft.
Bite me.

[MacGuffin]

Bite me.
Don't worry, you are safe.

[nfinityi]

Don't worry, you are safe.
Someone has to ask first.

[MacGuffin]

Someone has to ask first.
You can just tell, too.

[nfinityi]

You can just tell, too.
With my luck they'll just put me on the front lines.

[Rhu]

With my luck they'll just put me on the front lines.
With our luck, they won't! ;)

[nfinityi]

With our luck, they won't! ;)
<_<

[Ellipsis]

Here's how I see it, if you are going to invade a country, I don't care what the reason or the circumstances, don't do it half ass! So I am all up for sending more troops in, its the best idea, either that or the last few years of posts on INTP central regarding the subject have been a total waste. The first thing the US has to do (excluding ethics) would be to establish a brutal regime, kill a few innocent people here and there as an example, show those people who is boss, there are then 2 results that could happen: The first is the the people quit fighting and surrender in face of these things. The second is that both factions team up and kick the US out (the US should have reduced ground troop numbers in the face of this oncoming threat and thus march out). If the second happens other nations(US allies) should march in with much needed resources and humanitarian help(proving that not all western states are not bad)...The Us should subsequently (after an election-to seem sincere) admit to all it's misdeeds and ask the World and Iraq for forgiveness . As for the first scenario, the US should then deploy humanitarian aid(under gun point) to prove that they are not so bad, establish a democracy(under US "super vision"), blah blah blah. Then after 5-20 years leave Iraq. Of course the third option is to leave Iraq, and sanction any trade done with the nation(No wimpy ass sanctions, I mean patrolling the border with guns, shooting down air planes coming over the border etc.). Then after Iraq is on it's knees(won't take too long, it's food suppys are not that large)...come in and reoccupy them, this time with less resistance (Of course if that doesn't happen, go patrol the border again).(Note these plans might encourage international criticism but who cares...its not like any one of them is going to attack the US....at the risk of nuclear war)...

I realise this may seem like a joke and it is but the fact is the US is not doing any thing as it stands (quite the inverse).

[MacGuffin]

Here's how I see it, if you are going to invade a country, I don't care what the reason or the circumstances, don't do it half ass! So I am all up for sending more troops in, its the best idea, either that or the last few years of posts on INTP central regarding the subject have been a total waste. The first thing the US has to do (excluding ethics) would be to establish a brutal regime, kill a few innocent people here and there as an example, show those people who is boss, there are then 2 results that could happen: The first is the the people quit fighting and surrender in face of these things. The second is that both factions team up and kick the US out (the US should have reduced ground troop numbers in the face of this oncoming threat and thus march out). If the second happens other nations(US allies) should march in with much needed resources and humanitarian help(proving that not all western states are not bad)...The Us should subsequently (after an election-to seem sincere) admit to all it's misdeeds and ask the World and Iraq for forgiveness . As for the first scenario, the US should then deploy humanitarian aid(under gun point) to prove that they are not so bad, establish a democracy(under US "super vision"), blah blah blah. Then after 5-20 years leave Iraq. Of course the third option is to leave Iraq, and sanction any trade done with the nation(No wimpy ass sanctions, I mean patrolling the border with guns, shooting down air planes coming over the border etc.). Then after Iraq is on it's knees(won't take too long, it's food suppys are not that large)...come in and reoccupy them, this time with less resistance (Of course if that doesn't happen, go patrol the border again).(Note these plans might encourage international criticism but who cares...its not like any one of them is going to attack the US....at the risk of nuclear war)...

I realise this may seem like a joke and it is but the fact is the US is not doing any thing as it stands (quite the inverse).
I deleted the other two copies of this post on two other threads.

Once is enough thank you.

[Ellipsis]

I deleted the other two copies of this post on two other threads.

Once is enough thank you.

Yes...I thought about not doing that...ah well....it was crazy enough for one thread...So then then that what do you think?

[omnirook]

Yes...I thought about not doing that...ah well....it was crazy enough for one thread...So then then that what do you think?

I think that you need to do some growing up and get over the imperialist bullshit. You want a real solution for the problem in Iraq - here it is: the US Government for once in its nearly 230 years of existence acts in the best interests of the American public, fuck the special interests: Now, this very day, start working seriously on divorcing us from the need for oil or - have every last dime that you have made over the last 100 years confiscated. That's that. Hesitate - and go on trial for treason, which, carries a capital penalty under federal law. Period. Then get the fuck out of Iraq and stop acting the schoolyard bully - the oil is NOT ours; we have NO right to it, even if it means that we die. Those are the rules of property and, unless you want to admit that property is bullshit - which you will not do - swallow it, get over it, get around it. The END.

[Ellipsis]

I think that you need to do some growing up and get over the imperialist bullshit. You want a real solution for the problem in Iraq - here it is: the US Government for once in its nearly 230 years of existence acts in the best interests of the American public, fuck the special interests: Now, this very day, start working seriously on divorcing us from the need for oil or - have every last dime that you have made over the last 100 years confiscated. That's that. Hesitate - and go on trial for treason, which, carries a capital penalty under federal law. Period. Then get the fuck out of Iraq and stop acting the schoolyard bully - the oil is NOT ours; we have NO right to it, even if it means that we die. Those are the rules of property and, unless you want to admit that property is bullshit - which you will not do - swallow it, get over it, get around it. The END.

Let me remind you that such sentimental values are not respected by any government, or else the world would be a much better place. The world is a selfish, hellish place, the American government is just doing what other government do, fight wars, and kill people. These higher values are nothing in face of today's (and yesterdays world), until all of humanity becomes as enlightened as you, it is the only way to do business...

[MacGuffin]

Let me remind you that such sentimental values are not respected by any government, or else the world would be a much better place. The world is a selfish, hellish place, the American government is just doing what other government do, fight wars, and kill people. These higher values are nothing in face of today's (and yesterdays world), until all of humanity becomes as enlightened as you, it is the only way to do business...
What happened to the boycott?

[Ellipsis]

What happened to the boycott?

It was a VOTE for a reason....I wanted views to be heard...and thus since it was turned down I can post...any way you are off topic and should delete your own post and mine...:P

[omnirook]

Let me remind you that such sentimental values are not respected by any government, or else the world would be a much better place. The world is a selfish, hellish place, the American government is just doing what other government do, fight wars, and kill people. These higher values are nothing in face of today's (and yesterdays world), until all of humanity becomes as enlightened as you, it is the only way to do business...

Yes - but at least some other governments have had the decency to admit it - though that has become rare of late because the American Government likes to play the "rule of law" game and is willing bomb any government that does not ... This time around, it was hard selling "liberation" and all the other bullshit to even the American public - there was even some grumbling among the lowest order of proles, the patriotic, trailer-trash faithful of the "red" states - if reality can make an impression on those thick skulls, then perhaps there is hope, after all. One day soon, w/luck, the American Government will wake up as Rome's did and realize that the people don't give a damn about the republic, not as long as they are fed and entertained and made to feel superior to everybody else. We can do Rome one better and rid ourselves of the cumbersome forms of the "democratic process" before 2 centuries and a string of civil wars have come and gone ... I can't help it - I grow tired of the show; it's boring - so damned predictable. We'll "stay the course" in Iraq until the oil is used up, no matter what the public wants or votes for. Oh, a little noise, a dismissed Cabinet Secretary or two, maybe even a conviction and a prison term for - somebody - all for show, all bullshit. And if I were one for gambling, I'd be willing to lay a pretty fat bet that we'll be at war w/Iran before that embarrassing thing that we call "President" is out of office.

[FranG]

Bush said in an interview he doesn't care what Congress thinks; he's sending the troops regardless. He says arrogant shit like this and the spineless Democrats still won't impeach him.

-------------------

In an interview set to air on this Sunday's 60 Minutes, President George W. Bush vows to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq "no matter what" the Democratic-controlled Congress tries to do.

"Do you believe as Commander in Chief you have the authority to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do," 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley asks Bush in the short clip uploaded to the CBS News web site Friday night.

"I think I've got, in this situation, I do, yeah," Bush said.

"Now I fully understand they will," Bush continued, "they could try to stop me from doing it, but, uh, I've made my decision and we're going forward." Read more... (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Bush_tells_60_Minutes_no_matter_0113.html)

[omnirook]

Bush said in an interview he doesn't care what Congress thinks; he's sending the troops regardless. He says arrogant shit like this and the spineless Democrats still won't impeach him.

-------------------

In an interview set to air on this Sunday's 60 Minutes, President George W. Bush vows to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq "no matter what" the Democratic-controlled Congress tries to do.

"Do you believe as Commander in Chief you have the authority to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do," 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley asks Bush in the short clip uploaded to the CBS News web site Friday night.

"I think I've got, in this situation, I do, yeah," Bush said.

"Now I fully understand they will," Bush continued, "they could try to stop me from doing it, but, uh, I've made my decision and we're going forward." Read more... (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Bush_tells_60_Minutes_no_matter_0113.html)

See my post above yours.

[FranG]

^^^^^
I saw. Your dead on as usual :)

[FranG]

It's confirmed that at least 70 nomads have been killed by U.S.airstrike. None of the 70 were the alleged terrorists though. I guess accidents happen ha? <_<

----------------

?Oxfam yesterday confirmed at least 70 nomads in the Afmadow district near the border with Kenya had been killed. The nomads were bombed at night and during the day while searching for water sources. Meanwhile, the US ambassador to Kenya has acknowledged that the onslaught on Islamist fighters failed to kill any of the three prime targets,? described as ?backfir[ing] spectacularly? by the British newspaper.

All of this runs counter to the assertions of U.S. ambassador, Michael Ranneberger, who said ?that no civilians had been killed or injured and that only one attack had taken place. The UN?s refugee agency, UNHCR, reported that an estimated 100 people were wounded in Monday?s air strikes on the small fishing village of Ras Kamboni launched from the US military base in Djibouti after a mobile phone intercept.? It is not explained why impoverished nomads, in search of water, would be in possession of cell phones (or, for that matter, why there are cell phone towers in a remote area of one of the world?s poorest countries). Read more... (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article2149716.ece)

[FranG]

NEWS FLASH

We could have double the troops in Iraq of what the President said according to the CBO (Congressional Budget Office); news article (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003239.html) reports. We may go from ana dditional 20,000 troops to damn near 50K. And the additional cost would about double as well; going from approximately $5 billion to $10 billion. Doublespeak is alive and well my friends.

[demagogic_schizoid]

the group who most want a US Presence in Iraq is the Sunni's now. Considering we (I include Britain and America as one in this) started this situation and took away their previous aparatus for imposing law and order, we should surely at least commit to policing the country until the Iraqis are able to effectively do so. If I had to trade the life of a British soldier to save a number of Iraqis from ethnic cleansing, I would do it. Maybe this sounds harsh but that is what soldiers do, they agree to risk their lives on command of the government. Now, I don't doubt that no Iraqi ideally wants us policing them, of course they want to be able to police themselves, but that isn't happening, and I don't think they would be better off under the compplete anarchy that would ensue if we started withdrawing. So sadly more troops may be the only feasible option for the time being - once you start something you have to see it through.

[NightCrawler]

One day soon, w/luck, the American Government will wake up as Rome's did and realize that the people don't give a damn about the republic, not as long as they are fed and entertained and made to feel superior to everybody else.
This is true, scary, and so obvious.


We can do Rome one better and rid ourselves of the cumbersome forms of the "democratic process" before 2 centuries and a string of civil wars have come and gone ... I can't help it - I grow tired of the show; it's boring - so damned predictable.
But we're powerful and fed right now, so what's the point? They can deal with that later.

[C.J.Woolf]

We could have double the troops in Iraq of what the President said according to the CBO (Congressional Budget Office); news article (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003239.html) reports. We may go from ana dditional 20,000 troops to damn near 50K.
I shoulda known. The administration's number of 20K only included combat troops and not the support troops they need. Actually, a 2:3 tooth-to-tail ratio is low for a US force; the US has fielded armies where only 15&#37; were trigger-pullers.

[FranG]

Considering we (I include Britain and America as one in this) started this situation and took away their previous aparatus for imposing law and order, we should surely at least commit to policing the country until the Iraqis are able to effectively do so.

A noble comment but it won't work. Under the current set-up, things will never get better. Change will never come from the occupation of a country by a foreign one. All affairs need to be settled internally. The reason being is because the occupying government will never put the needs of the country it's occupying first. Sure some overlapping mutual interests may occur but the occupying country will have other biases which conflict with interest of occupied country.

The U.S. just needs to leave. Period. They need to just go home tomorrow right now. We've been in Iraq now for damn near 4 years now. Has any progress been made? If so, someone please explain to me cause my eyes can't see it.

[Jennywocky]

A noble comment but it won't work. Under the current set-up, things will never get better. Change will never come from the occupation of a country by a foreign one. All affairs need to be settled internally. The reason being is because the occupying government will never put the needs of the country it's occupying first. Sure some overlapping mutual interests may occur but the occupying country will have other biases which conflict with interest of occupied country.

The U.S. just needs to leave. Period. They need to just go home tomorrow right now. We've been in Iraq now for damn near 4 years now. Has any progress been made? If so, someone please explain to me cause my eyes can't see it.


Scenario:

You are walking along an unfamiliar street in an unfamiliar neighborhood. You hear fighting in someone's house. It sounds like someone is being horribly abused.

Since you have a black belt, you decide to rush into the house to save them. There's some members of a family there beaten to a pulp by the dad, so you smack him around a bit -- but while you take him out, other members of the family who support the dad show up and you get into a huge fight. You call in some buddies on your cell phone, and the ensuring fight ends up reducing the house to rubble.

You are all left standing in the lot. It starts to rain. There's no longer any food or water or toilet facilities, and people are starting to complain. Some expect you to stay and help fix things; some blame you and wonder why you were involved; most are glad the dad and those who sided with him have been driven off, but now the dad's pals are pissed and they'll be back with their friends. (Already they're throwing rocks at you from the safety of nearby fences, but running before you can find them.)

You also realize that you really didn't want to get involved, because the family has been fighting and abusing each other for years and maintaining a stable if somewhat violent existence and would have continued to survive without your interference. Now they have no home and few resources.

You could train them to defend themselves, although they seem weak and untested. But many of them are vengeful and would like to inflict their own suffering on their enemies, turning the tables (so the situation will simply reverse if you leave) and creating the same problem as before.

You could just leave them to their fate, but realize you look like the villain, and everyone will hate you... and you truly ARE culpable for some of what happened there. If not for you, things wouldn't be as screwed up.

But if you leave without getting things up and running, the fighting could spread and destabilize the entire neighborhood.

Still, you also have a home and family, and you need to use your resources to support them... anything you do here will take away resources from your priority family/neighborhood.

What do you do? You screwed them and yourselves by sticking your neck in where maybe it shouldn't have been. But it doesn't change where things are now and what needs to be done for the best end result for everyone. You need to somehow resolve the current instability.

This example's not close to perfect, but I think it gets the point across.

[INThoughtPolice]

Once you sign the contract you are in and can be deployed for any mission, at any time with very little notice. You give up your right to choose by joining. The folks in the Air Force generally have the safest missions as they are usually placed in very remote locations. The Navy - they're on the water, sitting out there on the water - but usually safe in this type of warfare. The Army and Marines account for the greatest number of the casualties and injured lists.
Actually, large numbers from the Air Force and the Navy have ended up on the ground in Iraq. If you have a skill that may be applied to further the U.S. effort in Iraq, you have a good chance of going.

[FranG]

We may think differently about things but here's what I think:


Scenario:
You are walking along an unfamiliar street in an unfamiliar neighborhood. You hear fighting in someone's house. It sounds like someone is being horribly abused.

Since you have a black belt, you decide to rush into the house to save them. There's some members of a family there beaten to a pulp by the dad, so you smack him around a bit -- but while you take him out, other members of the family who support the dad show up and you get into a huge fight. You call in some buddies on your cell phone, and the ensuring fight ends up reducing the house to rubble.

Rule #1, Never get involved in domestic disputes. I'm sure we agree they should have never went to Iraq. But getting involved in domestic without all the facts is just asking for trouble. You don't know who's right and who's wrong.

Plus, we went to Iraq not to stop somebody from getting beat up, but to stop somebody from potentially shooting us. So we went in not to save some innocent soul, but to rob the house of it's weapons. We destroyed the house, we can pay for it. That's that. Let them manage the money how they see fit.



You are all left standing in the lot. It starts to rain. There's no longer any food or water or toilet facilities, and people are starting to complain. Some expect you to stay and help fix things; some blame you and wonder why you were involved; most are glad the dad and those who sided with him have been driven off, but now the dad's pals are pissed and they'll be back with their friends. (Already they're throwing rocks at you from the safety of nearby fences, but running before you can find them.)

You gotta leave that place. Give the people the money to fix the problem and let them manage it how they see fit. If you really want to be benelovent, then offer them refuge at your house. But the people in your own house will resent that so just give them the money.




You also realize that you really didn't want to get involved, because the family has been fighting and abusing each other for years and maintaining a stable if somewhat violent existence and would have continued to survive without your interference. Now they have no home and few resources.

Give them the money and they can buy that stuff. Give them money so they can hire who they want there for security and give them access to their oil resources.



You could train them to defend themselves, although they seem weak and untested. But many of them are vengeful and would like to inflict their own suffering on their enemies, turning the tables (so the situation will simply reverse if you leave) and creating the same problem as before.

Not your problem. If it goes back to the way it was, then everything is as if it was that first day you heard the violence in the house. In hindsight you say you wouldn't have gone in, or realized that you should not have gone in. Had you not gone in, the situation would be "back to normal" before your interference so everything balances. Just give them the money and it's all good.



You could just leave them to their fate, but realize you look like the villain, and everyone will hate you... and you truly ARE culpable for some of what happened there. If not for you, things wouldn't be as screwed up.


True. But if you don't know what you're doing then you shouldn't be there trying to fix things. You'll just have to live with being the villain if that's your destiny. You can't send a boy to do a man's job. If you tried to fix the situation but you keep fucking up, then it's time to let a man handle that. Just give them the money and let them manage the situation on their own.



But if you leave without getting things up and running, the fighting could spread and destabilize the entire neighborhood.

It could. But if you give them the money and they hire a real man to keep order, then it's straight. Or maybe they distribute the money to the people, whatever. But let them decide what is best for them. If they want you over there, they'll let you know.



Still, you also have a home and family, and you need to use your resources to support them... anything you do here will take away resources from your priority family/neighborhood.

Yeah boys typically make silly mistakes like that. Acting unwise leads to problems. That's your destiny.



What do you do? You screwed them and yourselves by sticking your neck in where maybe it shouldn't have been. But it doesn't change where things are now and what needs to be done for the best end result for everyone. You need to somehow resolve the current instability.

This example's not close to perfect, but I think it gets the point across.

You give them the money and you get the hell outta there. Let them manage the situation as they see fit. Pay them market value for what you've damaged. Period. You can't save the world. Change has to come from within always. This is applicable to countries too. What we supposed to stay over there for another decade? Because we fucked up things? Get the hell outta there and let them fix it. You cause damage, you pay for damage. And that's it.

The only justification for us being in Iraq is if Iraq is now our country. So if we have "colonized" Iraq then you're point is valid. As the saying goes, you jump into somebody else's problem it becomes your problem. So if we are viewing it like that, then Iraq must be an official U.S. colony.

[Jennywocky]

You give them the money and you get the hell outta there. Let them manage the situation as they see fit. Pay them market value for what you've damaged. Period. You can't save the world. Change has to come from within always. This is applicable to countries too. What we supposed to stay over there for another decade? Because we fucked up things? Get the hell outta there and let them fix it. You cause damage, you pay for damage. And that's it.

A solution like that sounds to me as if the culprit is not taking responsibility for his ill-fated, thoughtless actions.

We don't belong in Iraq. We didn't belong in Iraq. I think we should get out of Iraq as fast as feasibly possible. I think the Iraq gov should get its act together. Unfortunately, it's not (albeit because there are religious tensions centuries-old undermining the whole process)... and the people without power to make the political decisions bear most of the trauma.

However, we went into Iraq. Handing someone a check and leaving, now that we've contributed to the mess there in such a prominent and large fashion, would be immature among other things.

I don't feel like you have a real good grasp of what it means for us to take ownership of our mistakes. Handing them a check is superficial and shallow and doesn't cut it.

Put another way, part of our "paying for the damage" is actually doing the work to fix the damage that we've caused. It's certainly what I would require of my children if they did such a stupid, thoughtless thing, and I'd require it of myself as well.

[attila_the_hunny]

How can you say such things?

Don't you remember -- he's a uniter, not a divider?

And the decider!

[Jennywocky]

And the decider!

Oh. I forgot about the Decider part.

I decide lots of things too. Sometimes. (well, not really, but my point stands.)

[omnirook]

A solution like that sounds to me as if the culprit is not taking responsibility for his ill-fated, thoughtless actions.

We don't belong in Iraq. We didn't belong in Iraq. I think we should get out of Iraq as fast as feasibly possible. I think the Iraq gov should get its act together. Unfortunately, it's not (albeit because there are religious tensions centuries-old undermining the whole process)... and the people without power to make the political decisions bear most of the trauma.

However, we went into Iraq. Handing someone a check and leaving, now that we've contributed to the mess there in such a prominent and large fashion, would be immature among other things.

I don't feel like you have a real good grasp of what it means for us to take ownership of our mistakes. Handing them a check is superficial and shallow and doesn't cut it.

Put another way, part of our "paying for the damage" is actually doing the work to fix the damage that we've caused. It's certainly what I would require of my children if they did such a stupid, thoughtless thing, and I'd require it of myself as well.

Handing somebody a check and leaving, as you say, would be rather like a client leaving his $40 on the prostitute's dresser. "We're done - we got what we wanted - here's your money - goodbye, good luck, don't care if you die."

America will eventually have to pay for what the pig and his piglets have done. The price will be high, and it will be paid at a future date, and it will be paid by the public - of course ... And it won't be so far in the future that we can say, "Fuck it - that 's their problem" - which is what we have done w/so many of the messes that we have made (the environment being the worst). No, already, the piglet is sucking Chinese and Indian cock, and it won't be long before the others who have funded the nightmare that he has plunged us into will want their cocks sucked, too. The sad thing is that the price that America will pay for its arrogance and brutality will not go towards repairing the mess in Iraq. Like Vietnam, Iraq will have to fend for itself. Only, as you say, Iraq is - and will remain - torn by religious and ethnic strife ... For that, I do not pity them. Anyone who thinks that God cares if you are a Jew, Christian, Muslim - whatever - who is willing to kill people in God's name - well, they deserve what they get, fuck them, fuck them for all eternity ... But that strife is not our fault. What is our fault is having "uncorked" its bottle by removing the tyrrant who had shown himself capable of keeping the bottle's cork from exploding of its own accord ... What should we do in Iraq? Moot. What we should do will never be done - the pig and his piglets will never stand trial, will never do the Tyburn Jig, will never even be publicly charged w/treason. Bush and Cheney and Rice and Rumsfeld and Powell - all traitors, all should be punished. Will not happen.

[dubbeltop]

WTF? (More troops in Iraq)

Whats going on with Bush's attempt to send more troops to Iraq? How likely is he to be able to pull that off?

He will pull it off because he can't afford to lose face (which in fact has already happened) but it doesn't matter because the enemy can send more troops 2!!!OOPS

And if he is, what kind of troops will be going?

Jus plain run of the mill 19 year old drop outs waiting to get killed while quoting John Wayne (or nowadays a latino John Wayne)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne

Isn't it ironic?
Wayne did not serve during World War II........etc etc (see wiki link)

Say, if you are within the infantry unit on the U.S soil and have not stated clear that you wish to be in Combat, how likely are you to end up in Iraq within a month, or even say in the near future if Bush is to get his way?

They should use more recruiters and training specialists to use iraqi troops and hire a bunch of lonely sex starved Russian mercenaries to lead them into battle instead of wasting 'expensive' us soldiers in a FOREIGN country but then I am just a dumb fascist with no clue to military warfare I guess....

[demagogic_schizoid]

Fran - my post was not noble, it was realistic. If we pull out now there is a chance of ethnic cleansing being unleashed on a different scale to what is happening now. Think Rwanda. This isn't to say that the presence of foreign troops has made Iraq better than if they had never invaded at all, it's just to say that practically speaking we can't just pull out in the middle of a war we started. We are a police force there right now, maybe a very hated and not very effective one, but imagine what might happen if we left and anarchy took over the country completely. I'm not saying we will accomplish anything great there, but there is hope that with enough funding and time an Iraqi state security force can be set up which will be able to prevent this civil war escalating into a genocide. EDIT: just to counter the Ferrus post below, if not even avoiding genocide, perhaps all we will acheive by not leaving will be to save some lives. But it's still our obligation to do that considering that we created the situation.

[Ferrus]

Such is folly.

[Zephyrus055]

A Robert Greene interview that includes an anaylsis and his recommendations for the war

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-537730020242884002&q=Robert+Green+war