ParanoiA Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Ok, I'm a little confused. Before the democrats took power back, the media was telling me that I'm supposed to believe we need more troops. That was a big deal. Everytime a news camera found a democrat, they were going on about how we need an increased troop presence. The other thing, and I'm sure there's more, is armor. This armor was a huge deal. Again, everytime a news camera focused on a blue politician, they were going on about how Rumsfeld's an idiot and "where's the armor for our troops?". Then, this week they killed a resolution to get more troops and I haven't heard squat about armor since the election. What's the deal? Where did the chorus go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Not only was this debate worthless (since the President may do what he likes on this issue), but it distracted the media from the first "100 Hours" bills that began to hit the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1veedo Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 The Democratic position was always less troops. I don't know anything about this but I always thought more troops would be a good idea -- more troops now and we pull out sooner. The armor got fixed a while ago so that's why you dont hear about that anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 I'm confused as well. I thought the democrats wanted to "cut and run", while Bush wanted to "stay the course". McCain has been saying since the thing started to send more troops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 The armor got fixed a while ago so that's why you dont hear about that anymore.The bleeding edge M1117 Guardian assault vehicles were ordered from a firm in pre-Katrina New Orleans and were supposed to be ready this year. Don't know if that's going to happen. I saw where the new troops will have the same armor problems as before. I'm sure they will budget for everything else and then say, "We need more money for armor for our troops. What do you think America?" I'm reminded of a guy I know who kicked his son out of his house and gave him money to rent an apartment. The kid figured out that he could spend the rent money on beer and Dad would send him more rent money. But if he paid the rent with the rent money Dad wouldn't send him more money for beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebiu Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 I believe the stategy was to train the Iraqies to fight the insurgents themselves. I have not heard the old As they stand up we will stand down stategy in awhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 The problem is that it isn't just insurgents or terrorists. It is a civil war. We are trying to contain the violence, by keeping both the shia and the sunnis from killing each other. We want the shia to be strong, but not do a sherman on the sunni or the kurds. It is also easy to see how having the infidels helping the shia majority government would flame the fires for the sunnis. In my opinion, they should try and pullout of Baghdad and move towards the borders. Let the trained troops handle the capital on their own for awhile and see how it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Before the democrats took power back, the media was telling me that I'm supposed to believe we need more troops. That was a big deal. Everytime a news camera found a democrat, they were going on about how we need an increased troop presence. That's funny, "the media" told me that Iraq would not erupt into a civil war, and how people advancing that proposition were daft and out of touch with reality. In this case, "the media" was a bunch of administration talking heads along with Fox News. I guess "the media" isn't really apt in this case. Perhaps you should examine if "the media" is apt in your case, or if it represents a composition fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted May 12, 2007 Author Share Posted May 12, 2007 That's funny, "the media" told me that Iraq would not erupt into a civil war, and how people advancing that proposition were daft and out of touch with reality. Yeah I don't listen to them too much, although I take note of their position. In this case, "the media" was a bunch of administration talking heads along with Fox News. No, in this case, it was democrats on camera criticizing about lack of armor and number of troops - whatever channel or corporate news outlet you want. I agreed it was a good cause actually, but then it died down and it's the administration pushing for more troops. Anyway, this thread started back in January. My present conclusion is that it directly conflicts with the goal to bring them home, pretty easy call actually. And the criticisms on manpower, or soldier power, were just jabs thrown in the mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 whether or not its liked, the US and coalition are fighting for the stabilization of an oil rich area, which the world requires and the radical Islam ideology. as for liberal media and the liberal factions of the Democratic Party, which is most, are and have been fighting to regain power. success was achieved by taking of both the house and senate and now the concentration is on the White House. as for more troops, less or the conditions of the equipment, the probability is the ground commanders receive all they request. any request however in some cases may take time. no plant or factory has been refitted to military needs, as the US economy rolls on into the record books. as to Civil War in Iraq, you might find outside forces which should be inclined to side with their philosophy are in fact killing there own. unfortunately gain are made by these folks in the media war, just by killing people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haezed Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 The Democratic position was always less troops. I don't know anything about this but I always thought more troops would be a good idea -- more troops now and we pull out sooner. The armor got fixed a while ago so that's why you dont hear about that anymore. I'm a bit confused as well. John Kerry had a plan that was going to win the war but I guess he didn't share it with the rest of the democrats. Too bad, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foodchain Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 I never really understood what victory was to be over in Iraq, but I do know the latest news on the situation puts 1 in 200 down to 1 in 5 child/infant will die this summer from diarrhea resulting from drinking impure water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 I never really understood what victory was to be over in Iraq, but I do know the latest news on the situation puts 1 in 200 down to 1 in 5 child/infant will die this summer from diarrhea resulting from drinking impure water. the war to topple the Saddam government, with the reason to enforce UN mandates took a couple weeks. since then its turned to war on terror...or as some suggest a peace keeping mission. drinking water, i would think is no longer a problem in all the Mid-East, which it has been forever. General Electric, is producing billions of gallons of fresh water from sea water, in the area. additionally, there are already hundreds of humanitarian organization inside Iraq to see these things do not happen. it has been reduced somewhat, since terrorist went after them for awhile but the public pretty well put an end to that... waste purification, a new process for Iraq has been building in additional water sources for industrial usage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foodchain Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 the war to topple the Saddam government, with the reason to enforce UN mandates took a couple weeks. since then its turned to war on terror...or as some suggest a peace keeping mission. drinking water, i would think is no longer a problem in all the Mid-East, which it has been forever. General Electric, is producing billions of gallons of fresh water from sea water, in the area. additionally, there are already hundreds of humanitarian organization inside Iraq to see these things do not happen. it has been reduced somewhat, since terrorist went after them for awhile but the public pretty well put an end to that... waste purification, a new process for Iraq has been building in additional water sources for industrial usage. "Safe water shortage threatens Iraq’s children News item 22 March 2007" http://www.unicef.org.uk/press/news_detail.asp?news_id=917 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 as i said and still feel, i wouldn't think that is a problem...still don't, but thanks for your source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haezed Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 "Safe water shortage threatens Iraq’s childrenNews item 22 March 2007" http://www.unicef.org.uk/press/news_detail.asp?news_id=917 This article really does point out the evil we are fighting - they will sabatoge the water systems killing kids to gain power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 The armour that is being (perhaps) procured goes under the capitalisation of MRAP (mine resistent ambush protected) vehicles. I think this is tied to funding of the Iraq war, so vetoing the war means vetoing MRAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 Congress, in playing politics and sending restrictive bills and the Executive Branch in the veto for known reasons, both know these armors are being produced and shipped. the capitalist system, in the US is also realistic. they would produce the products even if they felt payments were years off. understand, that in an effort to gain power, makes these folks no less American. in fact its these efforts which are sometimes mis-understood is the pure practice of our system, which we have fought for...if there is a time when the differences are real in content, it will over domestic issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haezed Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 The armour that is being (perhaps) procured goes under the capitalisation of MRAP (mine resistent ambush protected) vehicles. I think this is tied to funding of the Iraq war, so vetoing the war means vetoing MRAP. No it doesn't. It mean's telling congress to either override the veto or send a bill that funds MRAP, etc without strings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Congress, in playing politics and sending restrictive bills and the Executive Branch in the veto for known reasons, both know these armors are being produced and shipped. the capitalist system, in the US is also realistic. they would produce the products even if they felt payments were years off. understand, that in an effort to gain power, makes these folks no less American. in fact its these efforts which are sometimes mis-understood is the pure practice of our system, which we have fought for...if there is a time when the differences are real in content, it will over domestic issues. Well, not exactly... They are being produced now because they already have orders. In fact, the situation is sort of the opposite, the armed services can't get vehicles through the testing and evaluation process fast enough. They already have buckets of money from Congress from previous years, and Congress is likely to give them more. The Marines have already ordered a thousand vehicles from one company and have another 8 companies vehicles in evaluation. It's a very busy part of the defence industry right now. No it doesn't. It mean's telling congress to either override the veto or send a bill that funds MRAP, etc without strings. Oh sure, MRAP is going ahead. The thing is that initially 7,700 were to be bought. The Democrats have talked up armoured vehicles, and so that number could be doubled. So when you're talking about what the Democrats are doing about armoured vehicles, it would be increasing the number of MRAPs. And that isn't 'officially' happening, with the veto. The weird thing is that 15,000 vehicles are not going to be produced within a year or two, and by that time the Democrats might be pulling out alot of troops. So this could all be politicking anyway, because the extra MRAPs are pretty hard to justify without the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted May 14, 2007 Author Share Posted May 14, 2007 Ok, now an updated question... http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/14/iraq.main/index.html I thought Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq? Now we've got CNN, MSNBC, Fox News - everybody basically - saying they are in Iraq. So, if they are in Iraq, I guess the administration was right huh? Interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now