Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 60

Thread: More troops inbound to Baghdad

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default More troops inbound to Baghdad

    http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=5F...s&fg=&GT1=8921

    20,000 troops is more than I expected, but it's not nearly enough. Saddam had 900,000 when he was in power, and the Kurds, the smallest minority in the country, still had the balls to rebel against him. How do you think this little detachment will do? I can't see this as being anything else as a political manuver. The president wants to look like he's doing somehting about the continuing debacle in Iraq, and he wants to make the new Democratic congress look powerless to push it's anti-war agenda. Either way, it won't bring the war any closer to being over.
    Last edited by hsimoorb; January 11, 2007 at 03:22 PM.

  2. #2

    Default Re: More troops inbound to Bagdad

    and where the F are the democrats to contest this? Are they still spineless and scared to look weak and unsupportive of the troops by debating this decision?

  3. #3

    Default Re: More troops inbound to Bagdad

    Quote Originally Posted by RZZZA View Post
    and where the F are the democrats to contest this? Are they still spineless and scared to look weak and unsupportive of the troops by debating this decision?
    They are probably a little hesitant to throw Iraq to the wolves.
    "oooh a gypsy wind is blowing warm tonight, sky is starlit and the time is right. Now you're telling me you have to go...before you do there's something you should know." - Bob Seger

    Freedom is the distance between church and state.

  4. #4

    Default Re: More troops inbound to Bagdad

    Quote Originally Posted by RZZZA View Post
    and where the F are the democrats to contest this? Are they still spineless and scared to look weak and unsupportive of the troops by debating this decision?
    To support the troops is to blindly send them to death? To support troops is to abandon your right to critic a president when he is stupid ?To support troops is the excuse for abandonning all kind of intelligence?
    Then the best way to control america is to send a soldier and then american citizens have to say yes to all or they not support troops?
    The only way to support troops is to keep love for them, to protect them when they are used as cannon meat, it is to stay critic.
    The blindly support troops speach is one of facism not one of a democratic country. The only way to support troops is to stay a smart citizen not a puppet. I am sure than troops are more proud to defend smart citizens than brainless puppets.

    Wet nose kiss

  5. #5

    Default Re: More troops inbound to Bagdad

    You spelt Baghdad wrong.

  6. #6
    Erik's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    15,653

    Default Re: More troops inbound to Bagdad

    Quote Originally Posted by hsimoorb View Post
    http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=5F...s&fg=&GT1=8921

    20,000 troops is more than I expected, but it's not nearly enough. Saddam had 900,000 when he was in power, and the Kurds, the smallest minority in the country, still had the balls to rebel against him. How do you think this little detachment will do? I can't see this as being anything else as a political manuver. The president wants to look like he's doing somehting about the continuing debacle in Iraq, and he wants to make the new Democratic congress look powerless to push it's anti-war agenda. Either way, it won't bring the war any closer to being over.
    I fully agree.
    A mere 20k troops is nothing more than a (political) symbol.
    I think the Neocons are just looking for ways to somehow blame the imminent defeat on the Democrats.

    Prediction: in two years time when America "cuts and runs" from Iraq the Neocons will say: "If only we had 20k more troops back in 2007, then we could have won this easily, but the Defeatocrats spoiled it all....and millions of Americans will actually believe it too".

    Quote Originally Posted by RZZZA View Post
    and where the F are the democrats to contest this? Are they still spineless and scared to look weak and unsupportive of the troops by debating this decision?
    I heard Nancy Pelosi strike the idea down quite ruthlessly, she obviously has some spine.
    Not sure about the rest of the Democrats though.
    Last edited by Erik; January 11, 2007 at 01:00 AM.



  7. #7

    Default Re: More troops inbound to Bagdad

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik View Post
    I heard Nancy Pelosi strike the idea down quite ruthlessly, she obviously has some spine.
    Not sure about the rest of the Democrats though.
    Very little spine when one offers no alternative, Im still waiting for Pelosi's counter plan to Iraq that doesnt end with "please see Congressman Murtha" and his "brilliant" plan of redeploying to Okinawa. Since the 20,000 will be focused in Baghdad it may in fact have some impact whether that impact will be more attacks in attempts to kill those soldiers or a positive one is up in the air however. Its obvious though this wont magically make Iraq better but then neither did Bush claim so in his speech, agree or disagree with his policy over the years the fact is he IS right when he says failing in Iraq cant be an option. The problem of course is there is little stomach to actually do otherwise and the newly appointed congress seems to have nothing new to bring to the table I mean hell the new House Intelligence Commit Chairman didnt even know who is a Shia or who is a Sunni....a man picked by Pelosi.

  8. #8
    Carach's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    18,054

    Default Re: More troops inbound to Bagdad

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik View Post
    I think the Neocons are just looking for ways to somehow blame the imminent defeat on the Democrats.
    Wow theres erik branding all right wingers as neo cons again... suprise suprise

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik View Post
    Prediction: in two years time when America "cuts and runs" from Iraq the Neocons will say: "If only we had 20k more troops back in 2007, then we could have won this easily, but the Defeatocrats spoiled it all....and millions of Americans will actually believe it too".
    and again with the conspiracy theories of the right wing.


    How about you drop the bashing of the right and actually talk about iraq?

    -------

    All people have done is criticise, criticise, criticise and criticise.. nobody has suggested anything to make it better (if anything can indeed be done) - bush doesnt send as many as he should of done because people whine.., he delays sending more because people keep saying "omg bring them home", people then whien theres not enough on the ground (due to the above), so he sends what is a 'safe bet' in his political climate, and now its not enough "omg another DISASTER for the neocons!"

    What would you suggest erik? what do you think mr Bush should do under present circumstances?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chocolatemouse View Post
    To support the troops is to blindly send them to death? To support troops is to abandon your right to critic a president when he is stupid ?To support troops is the excuse for abandonning all kind of intelligence?
    Then the best way to control america is to send a soldier and then american citizens have to say yes to all or they not support troops?
    The only way to support troops is to keep love for them, to protect them when they are used as cannon meat, it is to stay critic.
    The blindly support troops speach is one of facism not one of a democratic country. The only way to support troops is to stay a smart citizen not a puppet. I am sure than troops are more proud to defend smart citizens than brainless puppets.

    Wet nose kiss

    the above question goes to you as well.
    Last edited by Carach; January 11, 2007 at 09:24 AM.

  9. #9

    Default Re: More troops inbound to Bagdad

    Quote Originally Posted by Carach View Post




    the above question goes to you as well.
    Being french i have enougth be bashed about my positions on the war.
    Solutions? now it is a bit late for good solutions as all was wasted and destroyed.
    But a president witha brain would be nice for beginning. Multilateralism, money in reconstruction and not in weapons. To instal a secular power and not a religious one.Sadly at this point a good solution is a dream, but what can i say? we have been bashed when we were warning.
    Liberty fries syndroma
    :hmmm: freedom nose kiss

  10. #10
    Carach's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    18,054

    Default Re: More troops inbound to Bagdad

    Quote Originally Posted by Chocolatemouse View Post
    Being french i have enougth be bashed about my positions on the war.
    Yes you do, and not only about the positions on this war, which to be fair are debatable (im not exactly a "for iraq" person these days...)


    Quote Originally Posted by Chocolatemouse View Post
    Solutions? now it is a bit late for good solutions as all was wasted and destroyed.
    I somehow doubt that you had any 'solutions' in previous years either, but rather jumped on the "lets insult the coalition!" bandwagon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chocolatemouse View Post
    But a president witha brain would be nice for beginning.
    Not much of a 'solution' is it, believe it or not Bush is not a world leader of unlimited power, he's powers are more limited than that of the British Prime Minister - he cant do anything without the votes of the senate and so forth (im no expert on American politics, but i know that much) - As with in Britain, they voted on the war, they said "ok lets go in". That's not just Bush is it? Majority votes in both countries, and its not like only the 'neocons' voted in favour of it as Erik would have you believe - he's beloved left are just as responsible for this mess (hell id go so far to say even more so..) as Bush and his possy is

    Quote Originally Posted by Chocolatemouse View Post
    Multilateralism, money in reconstruction and not in weapons. To instal a secular power and not a religious one.Sadly at this point a good solution is a dream, but what can i say? we have been bashed when we were warning.
    Money has been poured into Iraq for reconstruction, unfortunately that reconstruction is damaged by militants and religious divide, and undermined by the media back here in the west.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chocolatemouse View Post
    we have been bashed when we were warning.
    France go against anything which is of american or british origin Chocolatemouse, its what france have been doing since Napoleon was kicked out - acting like the superpower they are not. The political limelight is all you have left and you use it to full effect (not just for iraq), when it comes to action your never there. I apologise for 'french bashing' but im just saying it how it is.

    The only difference here is that your leader's irritating ********ting paid off this time round. (no mods, this isnt a troll, if people can repeatedly call bush an idiot, fool .. all the names under the sun without so much as a warning, i am entitled to call the French governemnt complete idiots too.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Chocolatemouse View Post
    even now i still feel sadness and anger when talking about.
    You obviously havent seen me in a 'heated' debate round here before
    Last edited by Carach; January 11, 2007 at 09:57 AM.

  11. #11

    Default Re: More troops inbound to Bagdad

    Quote Originally Posted by Carach View Post

    I somehow doubt that you had any 'solutions' in previous years either, but rather jumped on the "lets insult the coalition!" bandwagon.







    Money has been poured into Iraq for reconstruction, unfortunately that reconstruction is damaged by militants and religious divide, and undermined by the media back here in the west.



    France go against anything which is of american or british origin Chocolatemouse, its what france have been doing since Napoleon was kicked out - acting like the superpower they are not. The political limelight is all you have left and you use it to full effect (not just for iraq), when it comes to action your never there. I apologise for 'french bashing' but im just saying it how it is.

    The only difference here is that your leader's irritating ********ting paid off this time round. (no mods, this isnt a troll, if people can repeatedly call bush an idiot, fool .. all the names under the sun without so much as a warning, i am entitled to call the French governemnt complete idiots too.)
    You not know me you cant say that i have been of thoses insulting coalition and what we have said about coalition is nothing compared to vulgarity that have been done and said by coalition supporters, i have even cried of this bashing. I have personnaly always respected american and english people , i critic goverments not nations.
    For the superpower thing , we are a country with enougth history and power to claim with right a right to talk and act. And at least not do the american puppy dogs.
    About french goverment i think too that they are idiots. I am not of thoses brainless who support their government in all conditions.
    You should take care to not do false opinions about people without knowing them.
    And with the irak event i was proud to be french and not a coalition brainless basher .

    freedom kisss

  12. #12

    Default Re: More troops inbound to Bagdad

    Fortunately Britain is pulling out, starting with 3000 troops gone by May.

  13. #13
    Farnan's Avatar Saviors of the Japanese
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Right behind you starring over your shoulder.
    Posts
    31,638

    Default Re: More troops inbound to Bagdad

    Bigger news...

    Bush also annouced ROE will be loosened.

    Even Bigger news...

    The Prime Minister of Iraq has given an ultimatum to the Mahdi Army to lay down its arms or face an offensive by 3 Iraqi Brigades and US forces.

    By STEVEN R. HURST and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writers
    Thu Jan 11, 6:19 AM ET



    BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's prime minister has told Shiite militiamen to surrender their weapons or face an all-out assault, part of a commitment U.S. President George W. Bush outlined to bring violence under control with a more aggressive Iraqi Army and 21,500 additional American troops.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Senior Iraqi officials said Wednesday that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, under pressure from the U.S., has agreed to crack down on the fighters even though they are loyal to his most powerful political ally, the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Previously, al-Maliki had resisted the move.

    In a speech that was carried live at 5 a.m. on Iraqi state television, Bush laid out his new plan to quell violence in and around the Iraqi capital in a televised address to the nation Wednesday night. In earlier operations, the president said, "political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence.

    "This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods," Bush said. "Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated."

    Before Bush spoke, a senior Shiite legislator and close al-Maliki adviser said the prime minister had warned that no militias would be spared in the crackdown.

    "The government has told the Sadrists: 'If we want to build a state we have no other choice but to attack armed groups,'" said the legislator, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for the prime minister.

    Bush warned that the U.S. expected al-Maliki to keep those promises.

    "America's commitment is not open-ended," Bush said. "If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people."

    The Iraqi government welcomed the new strategy and promised it was committed to succeeding in quelling the violence.

    "The failure in Iraq will not only affect this country only, but the rest of the region and the world, including the United States," said Sadiq al-Rikabi, an adviser to al-Maliki.

    "The current situation is not acceptable — not only for the American people but also for the Iraqis and their government. As Iraqis and as an elected government we welcome the American commitment for success," he added. "The Iraqi government also is committed to succeed."

    Al-Rikabi also stressed the importance of the Iraqis taking the lead.

    "The American plan cannot succeed without us because we work in the same field in order to defeat violence and terrorism and boost the democratic system," he said.

    Senior officials in radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's group said they will not comment on the speech until their political council meets later Thursday to discuss Bush's statements.

    Al-Maliki on Saturday announced that his government would implement a new security plan for Baghdad, which consists of neighborhood-by-neighborhood sweeps by Iraqi forces backed by U.S. troops.

    Sunni lawmaker Hussein al-Falluji rejected the plan to increase the number of American troops and warned that it would only increase the violence.

    "Bush's plan could be the last attempt to fix the chaos created after the invasion of Iraq. Yet, sending more troops will not end the problem, on the contrary, there will be more bloodshed," he said. "I think that the solution would be to set an objective timetable for the withdrawal of the American forces and start direct negotiations with the Iraqi resistance."

    Shiite politician and former member of parliament Mariam al-Rayes noted Democratic opposition to the increase in troops.

    "Some consider president Bush an adventurer," she told the state-run Iraqiya station. "But he has found that his role now is to support this government especially after the government asked for more support and authorities."

    In the past, the Iraqi government has tried to prevent American military operations against the Mahdi Army, while giving U.S. forces a free hand against Sunni militants. The Bush administration has pushed al-Maliki, who took office in May, to curb his militia allies or allow U.S. troops to do the job.

    Although al-Maliki withdrew political protection from the Mahdi Army, there was no guarantee the Shiite fighters would be easily routed from the large and growing area of Baghdad under their control.

    The militia has more fighters, weapons and sophistication today than it did in 2004, when it battled U.S. forces to a standstill in two strongholds, the Shiite holy city of Najaf and Sadr City, Baghdad's sprawling Shiite slum.

    Sunni militants, meanwhile, have put up fierce resistance in the five days since al-Maliki announced his new security initiative for Baghdad.

    Iraqi and U.S. troops have battled Sunni insurgents along Haifa Street in central Baghdad in two major battles.

    The neighborhood is only about 2 1/2 miles north of the Green Zone, site of the Iraqi government headquarters, the U.S. Embassy and base for thousands of American soldiers.

    Eighty suspected insurgents were killed in the fighting — 50 of them on Tuesday alone, in an assault backed by U.S. troops, fighter jets and attack helicopters.

    Bush said the U.S. will send 21,500 more troops — 17,500 of them to help pacify Baghdad,

    The increase in troop levels was part of a larger military and economic effort intended to turn around a 3 1/2-year-old war that has cost the U.S. hundreds of billions of dollars and more than 3,000 lives.

    In preparation for the new security plan, the Iraqi military will bring two brigades from northern Iraq, a region largely populated by Kurds, and one from the south.

    Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died, many of them in the capital in the past year — after the war became a religious conflict between Sunnis and Shiites. Sectarian violence began after the February bombing of a major Shiite shrine by al-Qaida in Iraq.

    Al-Maliki has not commented on the Bush administration's plans to create a set of benchmarks to measure the Iraqi government's progress on improving security.

    Washington wants the prime minister to come up with a plan to equitably share the country's oil wealth, ease restrictions on former Baath Party members and hold provincial elections — steps regarded as critically important to drawing Sunnis into the political process.

    An Iraqi general, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose details of the plan, said a mainly Kurdish force would be sent into the Sadr City slum in northeast Baghdad, which serves as headquarters of the Mahdi Army.

    The general said Kurds, who are Sunni but not Arab, were being used against the Shiite militia because soldiers from other Iraqi units were likely to refuse to fight fellow Shiites. An estimated 80 percent of Iraq's army is Shiite.

    Under the new security plan, the general said, U.S. and Iraqi troops will sweep Baghdad neighborhoods in an effort to dislodge the Mahdi Army, as well as Sunni extremists — including al-Qaida in Iraq and two of its allied groups, the Ansar al-Sunnah Army and the Omar Brigade.

    Iraqi and U.S. officials said Iraqi commanders will be put in charge of each of nine city districts. Each commander will operate independently of Iraqi military headquarters.

    Al-Maliki has named Lt. Gen. Aboud Gambar, an Iraqi general who was taken prisoner of war by U.S. forces during the 1991 Gulf war, as the overall commander.

    Gambar, a Shiite, will have two assistants, one from the police and one from the army, Iraqi military officers said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the information. Gambar will report directly to al-Maliki.

    The Americans plan to put 400 to 600 U.S. soldiers in each district as a backup force, a senior Bush administration official said Wednesday. Others will be held in reserve throughout the capital to deploy quickly on the request of Iraqi commanders.

    One senior U.S. official said al-Maliki agreed to stop protecting the Mahdi Army under pressure from both the U.S. and his fellow Iraqis. In a conference call with U.S. reporters, the official said the al-Maliki "plan will work" because it frees his military from political and sectarian influence.

    The latest drive to pacify Baghdad is at least the fourth since the war began. All have had only limited success, with insurgents and militants swiftly returning to neighborhoods after U.S. and Iraqi military forces departed.

    The U.S. military also announced that four more American soldiers had died Tuesday from combat wounds in Iraq.
    Last edited by Farnan; January 11, 2007 at 09:31 AM.
    “The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”

    —Sir William Francis Butler

  14. #14
    Farnan's Avatar Saviors of the Japanese
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Right behind you starring over your shoulder.
    Posts
    31,638

    Default Re: More troops inbound to Bagdad

    Chocolatemouse: Carach is English, not American...
    Last edited by Farnan; January 11, 2007 at 09:44 AM.
    “The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”

    —Sir William Francis Butler

  15. #15

    Default Re: More troops inbound to Bagdad

    Quote Originally Posted by Farnan View Post
    Chocolatemoosemouse: Carach is English, not American...

    In case of Irak war it have been pretty the same at beginning. We were even expecting a new state in the union.
    And sorry really, bashings in this period have been so violent , so vulgar than even now i still feel sadness and anger when talking about.

  16. #16
    Farnan's Avatar Saviors of the Japanese
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Right behind you starring over your shoulder.
    Posts
    31,638

    Default Re: More troops inbound to Bagdad

    To Chocolatemouse: I personally apologise for any insults you may have recieved. It was a difficult time for us, and we expected you to be beside us, and when you weren't we got angry. That does not excuse insulting the French people.
    “The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”

    —Sir William Francis Butler

  17. #17

    Default Re: More troops inbound to Bagdad

    Quote Originally Posted by Farnan View Post
    To Chocolatemouse: I personally apologise for any insults you may have recieved. It was a difficult time for us, and we expected you to be beside us, and when you weren't we got angry. That does not excuse insulting the French people.
    I have always keep admiration for my american friends, my grand father a man i respected was an american Gi from Michigan who decided to stay in france.
    My disgust have been to american goverment , french have been here at first golf war, at the second mister Bush decided that he needed slaves not allied, that internationals laws were not for usa.
    When 9/11 happened all bells in france church have toll in memory of thoses who died, trust me we had faith and respect for usa, sadly it was for us as a slap in face as a betraying from an old friend.
    Friendly wet Nose kiss
    Last edited by Chocolatemouse; January 11, 2007 at 10:17 AM.

  18. #18

    Default Re: More troops inbound to Bagdad

    Some Americans do seem foolish enough to expect vassal states from Europe.

  19. #19
    Rhah's Avatar S'eer of Fnords
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,535

    Default Re: More troops inbound to Bagdad

    So, the Coalition is going to go after the Mahdi army, with the approval of the Iraqi government.

    I'm not going to pretend to be some sort of strategic expert or anything, but does it not seem a tad foolhardy to provoke the most powerful militia in Iraq when you are having enough trouble dealing with everybody else???
    I mean, With these extra 20,000 troops being deployed, there was at least the possibility that the situation in Baghdad could have improved, but now it looks like that extra 20,000 will be cancelled out by the fact that the Mahdi army will also be fighting against them openly.

    Bush's stupidity strikes again
    "Moral indignation is jealousy with a Halo" - H.G. Wells.


    Sig crafted by Bulgaroctonus, Member of S.I.N., Proud Spurs fan
    Son of Valus, Brother to Mimirswell and Proximus
    Patron of Shaun, Eventhorizen, Beowulf47
    and Rob_the_celt

  20. #20
    Mig el Pig's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Ghent, flanders, belgium, europe, earth
    Posts
    1,010

    Default Re: More troops inbound to Bagdad

    I found it hilarious that Bush made a speech last night about the mistakes in Iraq and now his troops have taken 6 iranians hostage while invading their consulate in Iraq(the consulate is technicly Iranian territory)

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •