| 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 (1,176 Views) | |
| somerled | Nov 29 2004, 08:36 AM Post #76 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Not right .
and from your citation:
That's knots , not km per hour - there is a difference (140 knots = 260 km per hour). 159 knots = 300 km per hr . |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 29 2004, 11:51 AM Post #77 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Did you notice the distance was 299 nautical miles, not kilometers? 299 nautical miles is 344 statute miles, which is 554.5km. 159 knots is actually about 294km/h, but who will quibble. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| somerled | Nov 29 2004, 12:45 PM Post #78 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Still not very far. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 29 2004, 01:01 PM Post #79 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
and in addition...
His quote was correct. It works out to be one hour and fifty-three minutes at maximum cruise. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| doctortobe | Nov 29 2004, 02:27 PM Post #80 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Which means that any person in critical condition would probably be dead, and that the wounded would be piled up and dying due to the fact that the helicopters could only pick up wounded every 3 HOURS. It's a good thing that the Army has field hospitals close to the AO. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Dwayne | Nov 29 2004, 06:54 PM Post #81 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
If anything proved you have no clue what you're talking about, everything you said above proved it. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| somerled | Nov 29 2004, 11:08 PM Post #82 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
|
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Dwayne | Nov 30 2004, 07:29 AM Post #83 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Huh? You truly are clueless. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Dec 1 2004, 09:33 PM Post #84 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
**UPDATE** U.S. to Expand Military Force in Iraq -Snip- WASHINGTON - The United States is expanding its military force in Iraq (news - web sites) to the highest level of the war — even higher than during the initial invasion in March 2003 — in order to bolster security in advance of next month's national elections. The 12,000-troop increase is to last only until March, but it says much about the strength and resiliency of an insurgency that U.S. military planners did not foresee when Baghdad was toppled in April 2003. Brig. Gen. David Rodriguez, deputy operations director of the Joint Staff, told reporters Wednesday that the American force will expand from 138,000 troops today to about 150,000 by January. The previous high for the U.S. force in Iraq was 148,000 on May 1, 2003, when President Bush (news - web sites) declared that major combat operations were over and most soldiers thought the war had been won. The initial invasion force included thousands of sailors on ships in the Persian Gulf and other waters, plus tens of thousands of troops in Kuwait and other surrounding countries. The expansion in Iraq will be achieved by sending about 1,500 troops from the 82nd Airborne Division in Fort Bragg, N.C., this month and by extending the combat tours of about 10,400 troops already in Iraq. Those 10,400 will be extras until March because the soldiers who were scheduled to replace them in January will arrive as planned. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved the moves Wednesday, according to a Pentagon (news - web sites) statement. --Snip-- |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Dec 2 2004, 08:13 AM Post #85 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Anyone else notice that the author presented a different analysis from the paragraph directly above it?
I guess that part didn't sink in to the author's thick skull and felt the need to prattle on about something completely new? |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| gvok | Dec 2 2004, 10:32 AM Post #86 |
|
Unregistered
|
So there is no way that the two statements can be consistant with each other, Admiral? |
| ^ | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Dec 2 2004, 11:12 AM Post #87 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Put frankly, No! The reason was given why troop strength was being increased. It is not up to some dipstick NEWS reporter to give his editorial analysis. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| gvok | Dec 2 2004, 11:22 AM Post #88 |
|
Unregistered
|
If the military foresaw the strength of the insurgency then they would have planned accordingly by having the appropriate troop strength, no? |
| ^ | |
| Fesarius | Dec 2 2004, 12:10 PM Post #89 |
|
Admiral
|
Admiral, I frequently find this with today's journalists and reporters. Their agendas frequently overshadow their responsibility to the public. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Dec 2 2004, 12:18 PM Post #90 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Then MAYBE, just maybe, they would have said so. In reality, we want to insure that the elections (and their results) are not disrupted by terrorists and Saddamist thugs. No, this "reporter" had an agenda and put it out there hanging in the wind. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
![]() Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Sign-up Now |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


3:19 AM Jul 11