Bush wants 70,000 more troops in iraq for long war

musicismylife78 · December 2006

According to the Wash Post today Bush said this:

A substantial military expansion will take years and would not immediately affect the war in Iraq. But it would begin to address the growing alarm among commanders about the state of the armed forces. Although the president offered no specifics, other U.S. officials said the administration is preparing plans to bolster the nation's permanent active-duty military with as many as 70,000 additional troops.

The question is where the hell is he going to get 70000 troops. There is near unanimous feeling among war planners and generals that the army and military is near the breaking point

polaris · December 2006

the longer it lasts ... the more public money can go to people who maked weapons ... just the way they want it ...

sapperskunk · December 2006

Here's how they'll get more.

1. Retention - offer larger bonuses or pinpoint duty assignments.

2. education access - give servicemembers a chance to stay in and go to school at the same time.

3. More money - pay the poor bastards much much better than what the're getting now. Because they sure as fuck deserve it.

4. shorter deployments - the wars aren't going away, but you could implement a better system to have 6 instead of twelve month deployments.

5. Up the amount of college money for the GI Bill. I get 2100.00 a month for being enrolled full time, but it's only for three years, takes four for an undergrad degree.

Maybe if all of these ideas were adopted, reenlistment would be higher and initial enlistments might raise also.

josevolution · December 2006

ok so more troops doesn't that mean more americans that the insurgents can kill ???????? what a fucked up president we have .........

sapperskunk · December 2006

josevolution wrote:

ok so more troops doesn't that mean more americans that the insurgents can kill ???????? what a fucked up president we have .........

You got it backwards man, Bush wants a larger military, Gates wants a surge of troops to go to Iraq, Bush is on the fence with this surge of deployable fighters until he sees a better plan.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2740870

DPrival78 · December 2006

Cheguevara6 wrote:

The question is where the hell is he going to get 70000 troops. There is near unanimous feeling among war planners and generals that the army and military is near the breaking point

if they want to send more kids to die in that needless mess, they should start with the kids of everyone working in this administration and congress. after that.. the kids of the CEO's of the biggest U.S. corporations could be next. i'm sure that can hit 70000 that way..

sapperskunk · December 2006

DPrival78 wrote:

if they want to send more kids to die in that needless mess, they should start with the kids of everyone working in this administration and congress. after that.. the kids of the CEO's of the biggest U.S. corporations could be next. i'm sure that can hit 70000 that way..

I like college campuses better.

josevolution · December 2006

sapperskunk wrote:

You got it backwards man, Bush wants a larger military, Gates wants a surge of troops to go to Iraq, Bush is on the fence with this surge of deployable fighters until he sees a better plan.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2740870

ok so i have it wrong but still more troops means more americans to die no ? or am i wrong on that also , no matter who wan'ts what it still a fucked up situation.......

in the time between · December 2006

polaris wrote:

the longer it lasts ... the more public money can go to people who maked weapons ... just the way they want it ...

Yeah man, that sounds about right...sadly.

enharmonic · December 2006

In other news, President Bush declared December 20th, "Day Late and a Billion Short Day" in the USA. He was going to call it "An Idiot Should Listen To His Generals Day" until he realized that he'd be the only one on holiday.

sapperskunk · December 2006

josevolution wrote:

ok so i have it wrong but still more troops means more americans to die no ? or am i wrong on that also , no matter who wan'ts what it still a fucked up situation.......

Yeah but more troops doesn't necessarily mean MORE will die.

150,000 troops = average of 2 deaths a day

200,000 troops = average of 2 deaths a day

270,000 troops = average of 2 deaths a day

You see what I mean? The same amount of attacks on coalition forces will be continuos and more troops doesn't mean MORE will die. As long as there are soldiers in Iraq period, there will be casualties.

DPrival78 · December 2006

sapperskunk wrote:

As long as there are soldiers in Iraq period, there will be casualties.

right, so why don't the people who started this war (based on a bunch of horseshit), and all those who voted for it, send their kids to die. and all the executives for all these military contractors.. pull their kids out of whatever ivy league school they're in and put a rifle in their hand.

TrixieCat · December 2006

From ImpeachBush.com
I will be there:

Sat., March 17--
March on the Pentagon!

Ramsey Clark will be leading a mass demonstration to the Pentagon on Saturday, March 17, the fourth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. This is the 40th anniversary of the March on the Pentagon, which became a turning point in registering mass opposition to the Vietnam War. The March 17 demonstration will assemble at 12 noon at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

Please join us at the Pentagon and bring your impeachment signs!

trappedinmyradio · December 2006

i have a crazy idea...why doesn't the u.s. government stop poking their nose in things that do not concern them?

even without wars...the u.s. needs to pay their soldiers better.

sapperskunk wrote:

Here's how they'll get more.

1. Retention - offer larger bonuses or pinpoint duty assignments.

2. education access - give servicemembers a chance to stay in and go to school at the same time.

3. More money - pay the poor bastards much much better than what the're getting now. Because they sure as fuck deserve it.

4. shorter deployments - the wars aren't going away, but you could implement a better system to have 6 instead of twelve month deployments.

5. Up the amount of college money for the GI Bill. I get 2100.00 a month for being enrolled full time, but it's only for three years, takes four for an undergrad degree.

Maybe if all of these ideas were adopted, reenlistment would be higher and initial enlistments might raise also.

yield2me · December 2006

TrixieCat wrote:

From ImpeachBush.com
I will be there:

Sat., March 17--
March on the Pentagon!

Ramsey Clark will be leading a mass demonstration to the Pentagon on Saturday, March 17, the fourth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. This is the 40th anniversary of the March on the Pentagon, which became a turning point in registering mass opposition to the Vietnam War. The March 17 demonstration will assemble at 12 noon at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

Please join us at the Pentagon and bring your impeachment signs!

seems like a strange place to march and hold a demonstration about impeaching Bush??? Wait....are you stoned again?

idratherbe · December 2006

Watching W's press conference yesterday, I *tried* to go into it with an open mind; come on, see what he has to say, maybe he'll finally make sense.

WRONG.

Less than ten minutes in, I was screaming rebuttals at the TV. Arrogance, lies, incompetence. Our Leader.

~peace~

Bush wants 70,000 more troops in iraq for long war

Comments

Categories