| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 1:17 am Post subject: U.S. considers sending 13,000 new troops to Iraq |
 |
|
Don't want ot be the one to say it, but told you so.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/04/10/iraq-us.html
| Quote: |
U.S. President George W. Bush could send as many as 13,000 new troops to Iraq by the end of the year and extend the deployments of thousands more soldiers currently serving in Iraq.
The U.S. Department of Defence announced Monday it had sent out notices to members of National Guard units in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Indiana and Ohio.
The four brigade combat teams, which include about 13,000 soldiers, could be sent to Iraq starting in December for a year-long deployment.
The call-up is controversial because under Pentagon rules, National Guard troops can only be deployed every five years. About one-third of the affected troops will have had only two years between deployments.
The move comes more than three months after Bush announced a "troop surge" of roughly 20,500 additional soldiers. Most were sent to Baghdad to clamp down on rising sectarian violence in the capital.
Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, has recently told Pentagon officials he believes the troop surge is paying off in Baghdad and doesn't want to lose momentum by shrinking the size of the force.
There are roughly 145,000 American troops currently serving in Iraq.
"The final determination of whether these units will deploy will be made based on conditions on the ground in Iraq," said a news release from the Pentagon.
Also Monday, the Pentagon said it is considering extending the tours of duty of 15,000 soldiers already in Iraq.
The five brigades would have to spend an extra four months in service before heading home.
The troop alerts and word of possible extensions come as Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress wrestle over legislation that would set timelines for troop withdrawals from Iraq.
Bush asked for more than $100 billion US to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year.
Congress has approved the money, but the Senate added a provision calling for most U.S. combat troops to be out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. The House version demands a September 2008 withdrawal. Bush has said he would veto any legislation that includes such deadlines. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Who considers? The "US" or the "Bush admin"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Don't worry..we'll all be dumbed down by American Idol and other useless programing on TV and it won't matter anymore. People are pretty apethetic about the war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cerebroden
Joined: 27 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:11 am Post subject: Re: U.S. considers sending 13,000 new troops to Iraq |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, has recently told Pentagon officials he believes the troop surge is paying off in Baghdad and doesn't want to lose momentum by shrinking the size of the force.
|
so by not sending them the size would be shrinking?
Too bad you don't
1. have an AKO account
2. Read the army times
3. No what you're talking about |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| No what you're talking about |
Hmmm, that's the pot calling the kettle black. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cerebroden
Joined: 27 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ahh the liberal strategy....argue over semantics |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| no the liberal strategy is to not start unnecessary wars that can't be won. That's a formula for success. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wrench
Joined: 07 Apr 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wars can't be won? Thats a liberal falasy.
All wars can be won. The only thing thats stoping them is the cost and I am not talking about financial.
MR SHite look up the word Genocide. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
