US 'troop boost in Iraq likely

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

ah yes, you state "you and your bum-chums" so the personal attacks continue. is this what you mean by debate, you attack those who disagree with you?

Actually Charles - I have a hard time seeing where you have actually disagreed with me, other than that you reacted simply because I started a Iraq thread in which i posted a more or less neutral news article (which I commented on), which has direct relevance to a broader public discussion that is going on at the moment about the future of Iraq:

More troops?/less troops?/Cut and Run?/Segregate!

I guess you were sleeping over the last few weeks. Enough to trawl up months old articles which bear no direct relevance to the present. If you don't think a 25,000+ increase in existing troop levels amounts to a significant policy change - then frankly I give up.

As I said - you seem to get some sort of kick of turning the focus of these debates onto yourself, or otherwise simply sabotaging them with semantic garbage. BTW - it was personal for you a long time before it was for me And we all know that you can't handle your own medicine - in anything approaching good humour.

Time for bed anyway.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Thanks Erekose. It's hard because I am not really into the politics (like most Australians) and he may go again later in 2007 and he only just got back in Feb this year.

That's certainly a tough one, especially on top of all the immigration stuff. How long was he there before?

[Ban Hammer 14,674]

ah yes, you state "you and your bum-chums" so the personal attacks continue. is this what you mean by debate, you attack those who disagree with you?

Actually Charles - I have a hard time seeing where you have actually disagreed with me, other than that you reacted simply because I started a Iraq thread in which i posted a more or less neutral news article (which I commented on), which has direct relevance to a broader public discussion that is going on at the moment about the future of Iraq:

More troops?/less troops?/Cut and Run?/Segregate!

I guess you were sleeping over the last few weeks. Enough to trawl up months old articles which bear no direct relevance to the present. If you don't think a 25,000+ increase in existing troop levels amounts to a significant policy change - then frankly I give up.

As I said - you seem to get some sort of kick of turning the focus of these debates onto yourself, or otherwise simply sabotaging them with semantic garbage. BTW - it was personal for you a long time before it was for me And we all know that you can't handle your own medicine - in anything approaching good humour.

Time for bed anyway.

maybe you were sleeping, since you lumped me in with others and i don't know what exactly you are referencing

old articles yet they sing the same tune. more troops in iraq! we need more troops. etc etc.

and this means the next time such comes up, it's news! that was my point, erekose.

i don't think a 25k increase in troops is a policy change because it won't happen. we don't have that to spare - unless of course you'd prefer to strip troops from other locations around the world and ignore those treaties in place that require our troops. in short, the only way to get 25k more troops is increase the active duty force by a division's worth. ergo, just because such is printed in the papers that does not mean it's going to happen.

i'm not turning any focus onto myself, where do you believe that occurs? yet you sure like to attack those who disagree with you with your continual jabs and slanderous remarks, don't you? i have not made one personal attack on you throughout this and then you try to claim the moral high ground while doing so. and then you carry on about "own medicine" while moaning and wringing your hands about "a debate" between these personal attacks. very sad..........

[ace13 0]

One of my good friends is getting sent back to Iraq. He has already been on two tours of duty. This will be his third and they are saying it will probably be for one year. He is a gunman.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

ah yes, you state "you and your bum-chums" so the personal attacks continue. is this what you mean by debate, you attack those who disagree with you?

Actually Charles - I have a hard time seeing where you have actually disagreed with me, other than that you reacted simply because I started a Iraq thread in which i posted a more or less neutral news article (which I commented on), which has direct relevance to a broader public discussion that is going on at the moment about the future of Iraq:

More troops?/less troops?/Cut and Run?/Segregate!

I guess you were sleeping over the last few weeks. Enough to trawl up months old articles which bear no direct relevance to the present. If you don't think a 25,000+ increase in existing troop levels amounts to a significant policy change - then frankly I give up.

As I said - you seem to get some sort of kick of turning the focus of these debates onto yourself, or otherwise simply sabotaging them with semantic garbage. BTW - it was personal for you a long time before it was for me And we all know that you can't handle your own medicine - in anything approaching good humour.

Time for bed anyway.

maybe you were sleeping, since you lumped me in with others and i don't know what exactly you are referencing

old articles yet they sing the same tune. more troops in iraq! we need more troops. etc etc.

and this means the next time such comes up, it's news! that was my point, erekose.

As you succinctly said at the outset.

i don't think a 25k increase in troops is a policy change because it won't happen. we don't have that to spare - unless of course you'd prefer to strip troops from other locations around the world and ignore those treaties in place that require our troops. in short, the only way to get 25k more troops is increase the active duty force by a division's worth. ergo, just because such is printed in the papers that does not mean it's going to happen. i'm not turning any focus onto myself, where do you believe that occurs? yet you sure like to attack those who disagree with you with your continual jabs and slanderous remarks, don't you? i have not made one personal attack on you throughout this and then you try to claim the moral high ground while doing so. and then you carry on about "own medicine" while moaning and wringing your hands about "a debate" between these personal attacks. very sad..........

Getting a big sense of deja vu here - from more than a few threads - and you weren't the one saying it... so Wah! Wah! :crying:

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Do you see a difference between sending more troops, and sending more troops despite the fact that the team of experts you hired has advised against it?

Both ways, it means more troops sent.

Also, Baker and Hamilton hardly qualified as experts--considering that Baker did poorly as SecState under Bush Sr.

[peezey 0]

now back to the regularly scheduled bushbashing with your host, erekose

Oh, goody. Bush is a fuc!tard.

[peezey 0]

i don't think a 25k increase in troops is a policy change because it won't happen. we don't have that to spare - unless of course you'd prefer to strip troops from other locations around the world and ignore those treaties in place that require our troops. in short, the only way to get 25k more troops is increase the active duty force by a division's worth. ergo, just because such is printed in the papers that does not mean it's going to happen.

Just yesterday a military analyst on NPR said 3 battallions (brigades?) (forgive me if this isn't the correct word for the largest section of Army troops) of 5,000 each could be deployed as soon as February. To get to 25,000, several thousand would be extended a few months while these are rotated in.

[girlfrmoz 1]

Jeeze I hope that doesn't mean my baby will go back to Iraq earlier. Crossed fingers, toes knees, etc. Yes, Erekose it's been really hard to handle the immigration process at the same time as his deployments but that's his job and if I want to be with him I have to handle it too.

We would love to expedite the process but we have no firm dates for his next tour so we can't. That's why when our initial approval process took longer than a lot of others I got really stressed. Luckily we are nearly at the end now. Hope to have packet 3 in the next couple of weeks and hope to be with him sometime in February. He should know more about his situation by then too.

I keep faith that I will get some time with him before he goes again.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Jeeze I hope that doesn't mean my baby will go back to Iraq earlier. Crossed fingers, toes knees, etc. Yes, Erekose it's been really hard to handle the immigration process at the same time as his deployments but that's his job and if I want to be with him I have to handle it too.

We would love to expedite the process but we have no firm dates for his next tour so we can't. That's why when our initial approval process took longer than a lot of others I got really stressed. Luckily we are nearly at the end now. Hope to have packet 3 in the next couple of weeks and hope to be with him sometime in February. He should know more about his situation by then too.

I keep faith that I will get some time with him before he goes again.

How does that work with the 90 day limit on the K1 if he gets called up after you enter the country - I guess there's some sort of extension they allow you?

[girlfrmoz 1]

I've checked that out...we just get married straight away and apply for extradition of AOS, etc. For military who are deployed you get evidence of the situation and they speed the process up and waiver his attendance at the interview.

[Ban Hammer 14,674]

Just yesterday a military analyst on NPR said 3 battallions (brigades?) (forgive me if this isn't the correct word for the largest section of Army troops) of 5,000 each could be deployed as soon as February. To get to 25,000, several thousand would be extended a few months while these are rotated in.

3 manuever battalions usually makes a brigade. 3 manuever brigades usually make a division. then you have the artillery brigade and helo brigade at div level, along with the rest of the odd battalions. average personnel count between 15k to low 20k

ah yes, you state "you and your bum-chums" so the personal attacks continue. is this what you mean by debate, you attack those who disagree with you?

Actually Charles - I have a hard time seeing where you have actually disagreed with me, other than that you reacted simply because I started a Iraq thread in which i posted a more or less neutral news article (which I commented on), which has direct relevance to a broader public discussion that is going on at the moment about the future of Iraq:

More troops?/less troops?/Cut and Run?/Segregate!

I guess you were sleeping over the last few weeks. Enough to trawl up months old articles which bear no direct relevance to the present. If you don't think a 25,000+ increase in existing troop levels amounts to a significant policy change - then frankly I give up.

As I said - you seem to get some sort of kick of turning the focus of these debates onto yourself, or otherwise simply sabotaging them with semantic garbage. BTW - it was personal for you a long time before it was for me And we all know that you can't handle your own medicine - in anything approaching good humour.

Time for bed anyway.

maybe you were sleeping, since you lumped me in with others and i don't know what exactly you are referencing

old articles yet they sing the same tune. more troops in iraq! we need more troops. etc etc.

and this means the next time such comes up, it's news! that was my point, erekose.

As you succinctly said at the outset.

so finally you agree with me. about time

i don't think a 25k increase in troops is a policy change because it won't happen. we don't have that to spare - unless of course you'd prefer to strip troops from other locations around the world and ignore those treaties in place that require our troops. in short, the only way to get 25k more troops is increase the active duty force by a division's worth. ergo, just because such is printed in the papers that does not mean it's going to happen. i'm not turning any focus onto myself, where do you believe that occurs? yet you sure like to attack those who disagree with you with your continual jabs and slanderous remarks, don't you? i have not made one personal attack on you throughout this and then you try to claim the moral high ground while doing so. and then you carry on about "own medicine" while moaning and wringing your hands about "a debate" between these personal attacks. very sad..........

Getting a big sense of deja vu here - from more than a few threads - and you weren't the one saying it... so Wah! Wah!

so if i was not the one saying it, why take out your frustration on me? so much for your desire to "debate"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

so if i was not the one saying it, why take out your frustration on me? so much for your desire to "debate"

As I said, following your example.

[Ban Hammer 14,674]

so if i was not the one saying it, why take out your frustration on me? so much for your desire to "debate"

As I said, following your example.

no, you're just continuing your vendetta against marc and others by trying to lump me and anyone else you can in with such. congrats, you've hijacked your own thread now.

[girlfrmoz 1]

You know both of you seem to miss the point that people like myself are actually impacted by this and people are actually dying needlessly.