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 (1,179 Views)
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 23 2004, 07:37 AM
Considering the size of our military, 3000-5000 is not significant.

OK - let me it this way - take your typical MC or Infantry Div , in the field, how many of those soldiers are actually involved in combat in a situation like Iraq.

I'll give you a hint , less than 10% . The rest are there to keep them fed, supplied , to provide artillary support, to provide logistics , to provide transport , and stay mostly in the rear.

Sure all soldiers recieve basic training and can theoretically be called on to fight, but it is only the fittest , and strongest are deployed as front line riflemen, machinegunists and the like. The others will only be called on fight under extreme circumstances.

So deployment of 3000 - 5000 extra combat troops to Iraq may represent a significant bolstering of the available combat troops already there, which may be as few as 10000 - 15000 (including armour). (Talking US forces only.)
Offline | Profile ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
You did not address Somerled's point. Of all the troops in Iraq how many are combat versus non combat troops?

Gvok,

You're joking, right? What about the points you don't address, and the questions put to you that go unanswered?
Offline | Profile ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Fesarius
Nov 23 2004, 10:38 AM
Quote:
 
You did not address Somerled's point. Of all the troops in Iraq how many are combat versus non combat troops?

Gvok,

You're joking, right? What about the points you don't address, and the questions put to you that go unanswered?

Is this another one of those times that you accuse me of something but then refuse to provide an example of me doing what you accuse me of?
^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
somerled
Nov 23 2004, 09:17 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 23 2004, 07:37 AM
Considering the size of our military, 3000-5000 is not significant.

OK - let me it this way - take your typical MC or Infantry Div , in the field, how many of those soldiers are actually involved in combat in a situation like Iraq.

I'll give you a hint , less than 10% . The rest are there to keep them fed, supplied , to provide artillary support, to provide logistics , to provide transport , and stay mostly in the rear.

Sure all soldiers recieve basic training and can theoretically be called on to fight, but it is only the fittest , and strongest are deployed as front line riflemen, machinegunists and the like. The others will only be called on fight under extreme circumstances.

So deployment of 3000 - 5000 extra combat troops to Iraq may represent a significant bolstering of the available combat troops already there, which may be as few as 10000 - 15000 (including armour). (Talking US forces only.)

Ahem, you don't think I know that?

By the way, no one said 3000 to 5000 COMBAT troops, did they?

Doof.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
Is this another one of those times that you accuse me of something but then refuse to provide an example of me doing what you accuse me of?

Not at all. You never told me who my 'guru' (your word) was. You accused me of having one, but did not have an answer even though I repeatedly asked you to provide one. There are other examples as well, but at this point, one will suffice.
Offline | Profile ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

We both know who your guru is. I did not see the need to tell you what you already know. ;)
^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
And again you evade answering the question.
Offline | Profile ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

I don't see it that way, however, even if your opinion is correct, according to Wichita no one on this board is required to answer the post of anyone else. So, I'm not sure why you are getting all bent out of shape. ;)
^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
Nice try. It is you whom are getting bent out of shape--as usual. I'll be awaiting another 'Have a good life' post soon.
Offline | Profile ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Fesarius
Nov 23 2004, 12:58 PM
I'll be awaiting another 'Have a good life' post soon.

:shrug:
^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
The feigning of ignorance is truly astounding....
Offline | Profile ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

I don't remember ever posting that. But enough Fes, I don't want to argue with you.
^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
No more selective memory--that's an order. :)

BTW, you would be wise not to argue with me. Better yet, you'd be even wiser not to debate me. :)
Offline | Profile ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

As I recall I was responding to an Admiral post and you intervened. Trust me, I never intended to argue or debate with you. That's not to say that I will kowtow to you either. But in the spirit of the holiday let's call it even. :kiss:
^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Okay, I accept your apology. :)
Offline | Profile ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Locked Topic

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus