Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
US Military Sees Need For Bigger Iraq Force
Topic Started: Nov 22 2004, 10:10 AM (1,180 Views)
gvok
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 22 2004, 11:44 AM
gvok
Nov 22 2004, 10:09 AM
Okay.  I didn't read the article as critical of the US military or Administration policy

I did.

I'm not surprised.
^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
gvok
Nov 22 2004, 11:43 AM
I wonder if any thought has been given to developing robot troops.

I have seen enough movies to know that robot troops is a bad idea :P
Offline | Profile ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
gvok
Nov 22 2004, 10:10 AM
The officers said the exact number of extra troops needed is still being reviewed but estimated it at the equivalent of several battalions, or about 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers.

:chin: I wonder if they will all be wearing red shirts... :chin:
Offline | Profile ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Dandandat
Nov 22 2004, 11:46 AM
gvok
Nov 22 2004, 11:43 AM
I wonder if any thought has been given to developing robot troops.

I have seen enough movies to know that robot troops is a bad idea :P

Seriously. :D

No, actually I was thinking about the drone planes only on the ground. Perhaps a robot tank or something smaller akin to infantry.
^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Quote:
 
I wonder if they will all be wearing red shirts...


Just what the hell is THAT supposed to mean?

Quote:
 
No, actually I was thinking about the drone planes only on the ground. Perhaps a robot tank or something smaller akin to infantry.


Not likely, the drones require human interface before taking any direct action (such as launching a missle towards a vehicle). Robot tanks would require the same only they would be much more complex (and more likely to break down), and the fact is that unless it is as fortified as a tank it would probably be destroyed as it would not have the manuverability to take cover. Tanks themselves are best used out in open terrain. They are very vulnerable inside urban areas.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Vger_art
Member Avatar
To baldly go
Back on subject, maybe the additional troops are needed because several countries have announced they will be pulling their troops out of Iraq after the elections. The latest contributors to do so are Poland (2400), Hungary (300), Thailand (450) and the Netherlands (1400) with a total of 4550 troops.

Some countries have already done so in the past few months: The Dominican Republic (300), Nicaragua (115), Honduras (370), The Philippines (50), Norway (155) and New Zealand (60) and others will reduce their contingents, mainly Singapore, Bulgaria and Moldava (with 400+ soldiers).

All put together, not counting the dead and wounded, that makes about 6000 soldiers and that leads me to believe the extra US troops are actually needed for replacement and not to expand their presence.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
I heard that Chile was going to supply 15,000 troops.
Offline | Profile ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 22 2004, 06:41 PM
I heard that Chile was going to supply 15,000 troops.

Where did you hear that? If it's true that would be good news.
^
 
Vger_art
Member Avatar
To baldly go
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 22 2004, 06:41 PM
I heard that Chile was going to supply 15,000 troops.

That's news to me, are you sure you're not mistaken with "Colombia Deploys 15,000 Troops for Bush"

According to the Dominion Chile supplies mercenaries, not regular troops. (Sorry, I know that's outdated but as a DS9 fan I couldn't resist :evil1: )
Offline | Profile ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
All put together, not counting the dead and wounded, that makes about 6000 soldiers and that leads me to believe the extra US troops are actually needed for replacement and not to expand their presence.

I think that that may be true. My brother-in-law, when he came home from the Iraq War, did mention another wave or two of soldiers--but I don't believe he used the word 'replacements.' I think he used another term (units?) but I can't remember exactly.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Vger_art
Nov 22 2004, 06:30 PM
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 22 2004, 06:41 PM
I heard that Chile was going to supply 15,000 troops.

That's news to me, are you sure you're not mistaken with "Colombia Deploys 15,000 Troops for Bush"

According to the Dominion Chile supplies mercenaries, not regular troops. (Sorry, I know that's outdated but as a DS9 fan I couldn't resist :evil1: )

Quote right, it is Columbia. I mis-typed. Bush was in Chile and my fingers got away from me.
Offline | Profile ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Dandandat
Nov 22 2004, 10:57 AM
gvok
Nov 22 2004, 10:33 AM
The article says that they need more forces.  What do you mean "so what"?

I believe that he is saying the number of additional forces being asked for is small compared to the number that is already their. That added to statements like:

Quote:
 
"What's important is to keep the pressure on these guys now that we've taken Fallujah from them," a high-ranking U.S. military commander said, speaking on condition he not be named because of the sensitivity of the deliberations on adding more troops. "We're in the pursuit phase. We have to stay after these guys so they don't get their feet set."


make’s it sound as if they have things well in hand. This is military action not a birthday party, things change over time, plans need to be adjusted. Its inevitable.

They needing a few more troops to Keep the pressure on and to stay after these guys in the most efficient way possible. Is a lot different then needing a lot more troops because they still haven’t been able to take Fallujah.

I am with Bill – so what.

Concidering that only a small fraction of any DIV on the ground are actually front line combat troops, and the rest are there to support them, maybe the question is how many more actual front line combat troops are earmarked for deployment ?

Quote:
 
several battalions, or about 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers
of extra combat troops may well be a significant reenforcement contingent.

It could be that while the number in comparision with the total number already deployed is small, it could represent a significant deployment of front line troops who will be used to bolster and reenforce those who are already in Iraq.

The deployment could mean that the Pentagon expects the situation in Iraq to become very much worse and perhaps to go down the tubes.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Considering the size of our military, 3000-5000 is not significant.

Offline | Profile ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
ImpulseEngine
Nov 22 2004, 11:46 AM
gvok
Nov 22 2004, 10:10 AM
The officers said the exact number of extra troops needed is still being reviewed but estimated it at the equivalent of several battalions, or about 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers.

:chin: I wonder if they will all be wearing red shirts... :chin:

Is this statement in reference to soldiers being sent into combat without proper gear?
Offline | Profile ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 23 2004, 07:37 AM
Considering the size of our military, 3000-5000 is not significant.

You did not address Somerled's point. Of all the troops in Iraq how many are combat versus non combat troops?
^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Locked Topic

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus