Eddo36 Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 (edited) more troops = more people to shoot at = more people who shoots :crazy: thoughts? Edited January 9, 2007 by Eddo36 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionavar Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Thread Pruned ... we'll see I guess ... The universe is change; your life is what our thoughts make it - Marcus Aurelius (161) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathScepter Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Sometimes in war, increasing the pressure can be an useful stragety Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pop Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Sometimes the pressure you need isn't the kind of pressure that is exerted by more soldiers restricted to police duty and training. Join me, and we shall make Production Beards a reality! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepixiesrock Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 But sometimes it is. Lou Gutman, P.I.- It's like I'm not even trying anymore!http://theatomicdanger.iforumer.com/index....theatomicdangerOne billion b-balls dribbling simultaneously throughout the galaxy. One trillion b-balls being slam dunked through a hoop throughout the galaxy. I can feel every single b-ball that has ever existed at my fingertips. I can feel their collective knowledge channeling through my viens. Every jumpshot, every rebound and three-pointer, every layup, dunk, and free throw. I am there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorian Drake Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 And sometimes these threads just dont make ANY sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WITHTEETH Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 The public didn't want more troops, that was proved with last years elections. This is becoming bushwacked. Hes trying to salvage anything ounce of dignity he can muster from this. T. Snow his Press Secretary says he can get it the 20K troops in Iraq even without the support of the house majority. How is this action possible if he doesn't have the finances to support such a bold move? Always outnumbered, never out gunned! Unreal Tournament 2004 Handle:Enlight_2.0 Myspace Website! My rig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorian Drake Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 oil* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nartwak Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 I don't see why you don't just close threads where the OP doesn't bother to put anything resembling effort or coherent interest into the subject he's brooching, Fionavar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laozi Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 I think its essential that we provide more troop for the war on terrorism. A couple of more months of diligent work and we can get rid of all these insurgents and things can go back to the way they were before 9/11, when everybody loved america. People laugh when I say that I think a jellyfish is one of the most beautiful things in the world. What they don't understand is, I mean a jellyfish with long, blond hair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveThaiBinh Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Even in the extremely unlikely event that more troops in Iraq resulted in an improvement in the security situation in Iraq, that would lead to the many the foreign insurgents in Iraq returning to their home countries in Eqypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, and going back to bombing and destabilizing there. It's common to hear ex-pats here in Saudi Arabia say that the longer Iraq stays a mess, the safer we are. "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astr0creep Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 The public didn't want more troops, that was proved with last years elections. This is becoming bushwacked. Hes trying to salvage anything ounce of dignity he can muster from this. T. Snow his Press Secretary says he can get it the 20K troops in Iraq even without the support of the house majority. How is this action possible if he doesn't have the finances to support such a bold move? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I remember shortly after 9/11, GWB was given "Emergency Powers" which basically gives him the freedom to use the military how ever he sees fit. Not sure if it is still in effect though, especially since he always asked congress for his "loans" and troops. Could've been just for show though. http://entertainmentandbeyond.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plano Skywalker Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 while Congress does, in fact, have the power to pull the funding on any military operation, I don't think it has ever been done and would be a highly risky political move for the Dems. generally speaking, the President (any U.S. President) is basically the dictator-in-chief when it comes to troop deployments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorian Drake Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 I think all of us have their own thoughts about it, and this thread won't help in anything, except making more spam. Think about it, thread creator didn't even once comment since he did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Raven Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 The troops need to come home. Bush will go over there and take their place. Hades was the life of the party. RIP You'll be missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astr0creep Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 The troops need to come home. Bush will go over there and take their place. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes. And a few months later Canadian soldiers will capture him, hiding in a hole in the ground... " http://entertainmentandbeyond.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirottu Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 I think all of us have their own thoughts about it, and this thread won't help in anything, except making more spam. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Since we all have thoughts about it isn This post is not to be enjoyed, discussed, or referenced on company time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 more troops = more people to shoot at = more people who shoots :crazy: thoughts? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Clausewitz discovered that by applying greater force to a smaller one, the greater force loses less casualties. So your over-simplistic model fails. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astr0creep Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 more troops = more people to shoot at = more people who shoots :crazy: thoughts? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Clausewitz discovered that by applying greater force to a smaller one, the greater force loses less casualties. So your over-simplistic model fails. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This reminds me of the land battles in Master of Orion 2 for some reason... http://entertainmentandbeyond.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 We currently have over 100,000 troops in Iraq and Afganistan.They have been useless in stopping the violence that has led to a civil war. Bush has failed. The problem is that he cannot accept his failure and his failure has cost the lives of 3000+ soldiers each of who have died a useless and meaningless death. Now he wants to throw more soldiers at the problem. I don't see a change in strategy. I don't see Bush learning from his mistakes. All I see is more of our soldiers going into a country to die and not a single good thing coming out of it. Bush and the Republicans have proven themselves incompetent in this matter. The only viable option is to remove our troops and let Iraq be swallowed by sectarian violence. It is the waste of US resources and US lives to continue being in a country that wants to kill itself. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WITHTEETH Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 more troops = more people to shoot at = more people who shoots :crazy: thoughts? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Clausewitz discovered that by applying greater force to a smaller one, the greater force loses less casualties. So your over-simplistic model fails. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This was back in the 19th century though. We're not dealing with muskets and sabres anymore so would this theory still apply in ever more complex situations like Iraq and their car bombs, bazookas, and AK's? Always outnumbered, never out gunned! Unreal Tournament 2004 Handle:Enlight_2.0 Myspace Website! My rig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volourn Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Sand is wrong as usual. I guess the US president during WW2 failed as well since they lost 10s of thosuands of troops in a matter of couple of years. :crazy: DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 (edited) In World War 2 we were directly attacked and so were our allies. Who did Iraq attack just prior to our invasion? The U.S.? No. Any of our allies? No. Did Saddam and his cronies even capable of attacking/invading another nation let alone the US when we invaded? No. Edited January 9, 2007 by Sand Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WITHTEETH Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Bush and the Republicans have proven themselves incompetent in this matter. The only viable option is to remove our troops and let Iraq be swallowed by sectarian violence. It is the waste of US resources and US lives to continue being in a country that wants to kill itself. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thus the middle east is left a wreck again and we can rape their oil pumps once more! Let this be a lesson to those oil companies that try to move their oil currency to the euro! Always outnumbered, never out gunned! Unreal Tournament 2004 Handle:Enlight_2.0 Myspace Website! My rig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Hardly. In fact I think it is best we move away from oil all together. With continuing advances in ethanol and biodiesel production we could rely on our own supplemented oil supplies and let the Middle East be damned. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts