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 (1,178 Views)
gvok
Unregistered

As I accept yours. ;)
^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
None was given.
Offline | Profile ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
:thud:
Offline | Profile ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Well you claimed to accept my apology when I gave none. I was just returning the anti-favor.
^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
In order to do that (truly) you should have opted not to post anything.
Offline | Profile ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Perhaps if I wanted to kowtow. Which I do not.
^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
You missed my point--again. If you want to do something 'anti,' then you need either to move backward in time or use some means that nearly replicates the axiom--e.g., posting nothing (as opposed to posting something).
Offline | Profile ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Oh I got your point baby. (No response expected or desired).
^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 23 2004, 12:14 PM
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.

Nor did I. Though the reenforcements may be (replacements for casalties taken so far).
Offline | Profile ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Gee, I didn't realize that there were 3000-5000 American casualties.
Offline | Profile ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
There have been 10184 US military casualties since the start of operations in Iraq, 1228 of them being fatalities. Plus 146 fatalities amoung troops from other countries.
Offline | Profile ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
That figure can be misleading. Soldiers who receive only minor wounds are treated and then sent back to their units. How much of that number is a result of one soldier being wounded multiple times?
Offline | Profile ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
doctortobe
Nov 24 2004, 05:27 PM
That figure can be misleading.  Soldiers who receive only minor wounds are treated and then sent back to their units.  How much of that number is a result of one soldier being wounded multiple times?

OK - how many troops (foreign and American) have been permanently incapacitated as a consequence of their involvent in the Iraq War to date ?

I have heard claims of several thousand - who have been discharged as a consequence and who are in hospital or undergoing recovery, though I can't put my fingers on the source. (at present)

If the casalties are low - why is there no mention of the figures in the press ?
Offline | Profile ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
24thcenstfan
Nov 23 2004, 08:42 AM
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?

No. My use of "red shirts" was the same as in Star Trek. I was being cynical about the continued casualities being suffered at the hands of an incompetent administration. I don't see what good additional troops are if they end up dead...
Offline | Profile ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Quote:
 
OK - how many troops (foreign and American) have been permanently incapacitated as a consequence of their involvent in the Iraq War to date ?

I have heard claims of several thousand - who have been discharged as a consequence and who are in hospital or undergoing recovery, though I can't put my fingers on the source. (at present)

If the casalties are low - why is there no mention of the figures in the press ?


Bring some evidence and I'll consider this to be more then a waste of bandwidth.

Quote:
 
No. My use of "red shirts" was the same as in Star Trek. I was being cynical about the continued casualities being suffered at the hands of an incompetent administration. I don't see what good additional troops are if they end up dead...


You're full of crap you know that? Go ahead and make fun of the soldiers so you can make a jab at Bush. While you're at it, why don't you make fun of the families who have lost loved ones or the people who have HAD THEIR HEADS CUT OFF!

You disgust me.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Locked Topic

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus