| 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: |
| US Military Sees Need For Bigger Iraq Force | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 22 2004, 10:10 AM (1,180 Views) | |
| gvok | Nov 22 2004, 11:45 AM Post #16 |
|
Unregistered
|
I'm not surprised. |
| ^ | |
| Dandandat | Nov 22 2004, 11:46 AM Post #17 |
|
Time to put something here
|
I have seen enough movies to know that robot troops is a bad idea
|
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Nov 22 2004, 11:46 AM Post #18 |
|
Admiral
|
I wonder if they will all be wearing red shirts...
|
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| gvok | Nov 22 2004, 11:48 AM Post #19 |
|
Unregistered
|
Seriously. No, actually I was thinking about the drone planes only on the ground. Perhaps a robot tank or something smaller akin to infantry. |
| ^ | |
| doctortobe | Nov 22 2004, 05:26 PM Post #20 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Just what the hell is THAT supposed to mean?
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 | Nov 22 2004, 06:16 PM Post #21 |
![]()
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 | Nov 22 2004, 06:41 PM Post #22 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
I heard that Chile was going to supply 15,000 troops. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| gvok | Nov 22 2004, 07:02 PM Post #23 |
|
Unregistered
|
Where did you hear that? If it's true that would be good news. |
| ^ | |
| Vger_art | Nov 22 2004, 07:30 PM Post #24 |
![]()
To baldly go
|
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 )
|
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Fesarius | Nov 22 2004, 07:55 PM Post #25 |
|
Admiral
|
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 | Nov 22 2004, 08:55 PM Post #26 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Quote right, it is Columbia. I mis-typed. Bush was in Chile and my fingers got away from me. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| somerled | Nov 23 2004, 12:25 AM Post #27 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
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 ? 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 | Nov 23 2004, 07:37 AM Post #28 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Considering the size of our military, 3000-5000 is not significant. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Nov 23 2004, 08:42 AM Post #29 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
Is this statement in reference to soldiers being sent into combat without proper gear? |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| gvok | Nov 23 2004, 09:37 AM Post #30 |
|
Unregistered
|
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 » |

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

)
3:19 AM Jul 11