Results 1 to 10 of 25
-
01-07-2007, 07:00 AM #1OPSenior Member
The Troops DO NOT want reinforcements
Soldiers Question Iraq Troop Increase
Associated Press | December 28, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Many of the American soldiers trying to quell sectarian killings in Baghdad don't appear to be looking for reinforcements. They say the temporary surge in troop levels some people are calling for is a bad idea.
U.S. President George W. Bush is considering increasing the number of troops in Iraq and embedding more U.S. advisers in Iraqi units. White House advisers have indicated Bush will announce his new plan for the war before his State of the Union address Jan. 23.
In dozens of interviews with soldiers of the Army's 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment as they patrolled the streets of eastern Baghdad, many said the Iraqi capital is embroiled in civil warfare between majority Shiite Muslims and Sunni Arabs that no number of American troops can stop.
Others insisted current troop levels are sufficient and said any increase in U.S. presence should focus on training Iraqi forces, not combat.
But their more troubling worry was that dispatching a new wave of soldiers would result in more U.S. casualties, and some questioned whether an increasingly muddled American mission in Baghdad is worth putting more lives on the line.
Spc. Don Roberts, who was stationed in Baghdad in 2004, said the situation had gotten worse because of increasing violence between Shiites and Sunnis.
"I don't know what could help at this point," said Roberts, 22. "What would more guys do? We can't pick sides. It's almost like we have to watch them kill each other, then ask questions."
Based in Fort Lewis, Washington, the battalion is part of the 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team of the 2nd Infantry Division. Deployed in June, its men were moved to Baghdad from Mosul in late November to relieve another Stryker battalion that had reached the end of its tour.
"Nothing's going to help. It's a religious war, and we're caught in the middle of it," said Sgt. Josh Keim, who is on his second tour in Iraq. "It's hard to be somewhere where there's no mission and we just drive around."
Capt. Matt James, commander of the battalion's Company B, was careful in how he described the unit's impact since arriving in Baghdad.
"The idea in calling us in was to make things better here, but it's very complicated and complex," he said.
But James said more troops in combat would likely not have the desired effect.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...ESRC=army-a.nl
Notice the comment about the civil warfare that does not exist*cough* Psycho Can you smell that crow cooking?
BlueCat Reviewed by BlueCat on . The Troops DO NOT want reinforcements Soldiers Question Iraq Troop Increase Associated Press | December 28, 2006 BAGHDAD, Iraq - Many of the American soldiers trying to quell sectarian killings in Baghdad don't appear to be looking for reinforcements. They say the temporary surge in troop levels some people are calling for is a bad idea. U.S. President George W. Bush is considering increasing the number of troops in Iraq and embedding more U.S. advisers in Iraqi units. White House advisers have indicated Bush will Rating: 5
-
01-07-2007, 03:28 PM #2Senior Member
The Troops DO NOT want reinforcements
Originally Posted by BlueCat
Now don't you be filling yourself on snacks.....the main course is coming!
Have a good one!:jointsmile:
-
01-08-2007, 01:02 AM #3OPSenior Member
The Troops DO NOT want reinforcements
You're pussy footing around the issue AGAIN. this was published on the main military website! The troops DO NOT want more troops involved in the CIVIL WAR you refuse to acknowledge exists. WHY? What do you gain by perpetuating this facade? I just don't understand Psycho. Please tell me why you want to believe there is no civil war when there is so much evidence to the contrary.
-
01-08-2007, 01:18 AM #4Senior Member
The Troops DO NOT want reinforcements
Originally Posted by BlueCat
five criteria for international recognition of this status: the
contestants must control territory, have a functioning government,
enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed
forces, and engage in major military operations.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...20/10020gl.htm
Only the Iraqi Gov. claims to control territory
Only one functioning government.
Only one with foreign recognition
Insurgents/terrorists/secular do not have identifiable regular armed forces
Only one, the Iraqi Gov. engages in major military operations. A dumbass with a suicide vest does not constitute a major operation.
Now based on the same criteria you tell my why they are. Thank you!
Don't know if your a Giants fan or not.......sorry to see them loose to the Eagles.
Have a good one!:jointsmile:
-
01-08-2007, 01:45 AM #5OPSenior Member
The Troops DO NOT want reinforcements
Ok this is from the very website you just posted...
Iraq In Civil War Says Former Premier
March 19, 2006 - Iraq's former prime minister, Iyad Allawi, says he believes sectarian violence has taken Iraq into a state of civil war.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...19-rferl01.htm
Saudi Foreign Minister Says Iraq Is In Civil War
April 9, 2006 -- Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, today became the second senior Middle Eastern political figure in two days to call the violence in Iraq a civil war.
Prince Saud said the definition of civil war is that the people of a country are fighting each other and that, by that standard, Iraq must be seen as in being in a state of civil war. He said the Arab League must work to bring the Iraqi sides together to avoid what he called a "disaster" for the region.
Prince Saud's remarks to journalists came a day after Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned that Iraq is in the throes of a civil war that threatens the entire Middle East.
Iraq "is not on the threshold [of civil war]. It has pretty much started," Mubarek said, adding that "I don't know how Iraq is going to get together again. The country is nearly destroyed.''
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...09-rferl03.htm
So I used the very website you posted to prove you wrong.....lets see what was the term slipknot used? Pwned? Yes I believe that's it you sir have been pwned
And I'm not a Giants fan but the Cowboy's fumble was pretty sweet...GO SEAHAWKS!!!
-
01-08-2007, 03:05 AM #6Senior Member
The Troops DO NOT want reinforcements
Originally Posted by BlueCat
Oh ya, my point is that if these folk really believed it was a civil war wouldn't they hold to that terminology? Gotta figure too, that was from almost a year ago.......things have improved since then.
I was also wondering when/if you were going to reply on this thread....lol...something special in there just for you!
http://boards.cannabis.com/showthread.php?t=97093
As always........it has been a pleasure.
Have a good one!:jointsmile:
-
01-08-2007, 03:19 AM #7OPSenior Member
The Troops DO NOT want reinforcements
Things HAVE NOT IMPROVED Psycho!!! I don't know where you get that!!
Read the Military Times I would think they would know.
On my way to the other thread now....
-
01-08-2007, 03:28 AM #8Member
The Troops DO NOT want reinforcements
I agree that the US should not send more troops because it is getting far worse then people could imagine since the invasion. I guess the war planners in their infinite wisdom forgot a thing called "insurgency"...or did they??? US troops are essentially target practice for the "insurgents" and if the US sends more troops over there, it will just be more target practice.
Americans are not stupid. Most know that this war is full of shit and for control for the oil. They know it was based on lies and that the WMDs story were simply an excuse and a scare tactic. Just wait until Iran switches to the Euro.
Thank goodness Canada didn't support the Iraq war. But then again, Canadians are known to be more tolerant and open eh! You'll be seeing more and more soldiers coming to Canada if the US escalates the war into Syria and Iran.
-
01-08-2007, 03:36 AM #9Senior Member
The Troops DO NOT want reinforcements
Hey HinduKush.......see your new. Welcome to the forums! This and sexuallity are about the only areas that you can let your hair down and call someone a dumb son-of-a-bitch. ENJOY! LOL
Things seem to get a bit hot in here so beware.
By the way, the Canadians may not have supported the war but they were one of the first to ask for exploration rights to oil fields. Your welcome! LOL
Have a good one!:jointsmile:
-
01-08-2007, 03:51 AM #10OPSenior Member
The Troops DO NOT want reinforcements
Originally Posted by HinduKush83
Advertisements
Similar Threads
-
US considering troops for Pakistan
By texas grass in forum Current EventsReplies: 0Last Post: 08-09-2008, 01:59 PM -
more troops?
By medicinal in forum PoliticsReplies: 0Last Post: 12-15-2006, 03:11 AM -
hi troops
By andy1874 in forum Introduce YourselfReplies: 2Last Post: 06-11-2006, 09:06 PM -
Troops in Iraq
By Smokey McPot in forum GreenGrassForums LoungeReplies: 2Last Post: 09-06-2005, 05:38 AM -
Endangering the Troops
By Torog in forum PoliticsReplies: 11Last Post: 09-03-2005, 11:41 PM