Tech Support Guy banner
1 - 20 of 124 Posts

·
Always remembered in our hearts
Joined
·
82,160 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
There are going to be many, many, more angry citizens of the U.S. after Bush's speech tonight...

BREAKING

Jan 10, 2:16 PM EST

Bush Speech to Detail Retooled Iraq Plan


By JENNIFER LOVEN

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush will tell a nation weary of war Wednesday night that he is sending 21,500 more Americans to Iraq, arguing it has been a mistake not to commit larger numbers of U.S and Iraqi troops to stabilize the increasingly violent, shattered country. Democrats pledged to confront Bush over the troop escalation set to begin next week.

Unveiling his retooled war strategy in a pivotal prime-time address from the White House, the president will acknowledge in unusually stark terms how dire the situation is - because of errors in U.S. assumptions and failures by the government in Iraq to follow through on promises.

Bush was to acknowledge a long and worsened list of problems in Iraq: the government's capabilities still are limited, sectarian divisions have widened, members of Iraqi security forces are contributing to the violence and suffer from high absenteeism, fighting in Baghdad between Shiites and Sunnis has increased and is influencing the rest of the country, essential services still are lacking, Iraqi support for the U.S. is declining, and Iraqis - while committed to a unified country - are increasingly turning from the central government to pursue more narrow sectarian agendas to hedge their bets.

The president is arguing that a gradual increase in U.S. troops, opposed by some key military leaders as a potentially ineffective strain on the armed forces, is the answer - along with pumping an extra $1 billion into Iraq's faltering economy.

A breakdown of the additional troops was provided by a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the increase has not been officially announced:

-Bush is committing 17,500 U.S. combat troops to Baghdad. The first of five brigades will arrive by next Monday. The next is to arrive by Feb. 15 and the reminder will go in 30-day increments.

-The president is committing 4,000 more Marines to Anbar Province, a base of the Sunni insurgency and foreign al-Qaida fighters.

The president is ignoring a key recommendation of the bipartisan, independent Iraq Study Group, that he solicit help from Syria and Iran, the official said. Instead, he will call for increased operations against nations meddling in Iraq, aimed at Iran and, to a lesser degree, Syria.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-01-10-13-31-08
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
124,707 Posts
angelize56 said:
There are going to be many, many, more angry citizens of the U.S. after Bush's speech tonight...

BREAKING

Jan 10, 2:16 PM EST

Bush Speech to Detail Retooled Iraq Plan


By JENNIFER LOVEN

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush will tell a nation weary of war Wednesday night that he is sending 21,500 more Americans to Iraq, arguing it has been a mistake not to commit larger numbers of U.S and Iraqi troops to stabilize the increasingly violent, shattered country. Democrats pledged to confront Bush over the troop escalation set to begin next week.

Unveiling his retooled war strategy in a pivotal prime-time address from the White House, the president will acknowledge in unusually stark terms how dire the situation is - because of errors in U.S. assumptions and failures by the government in Iraq to follow through on promises.

Bush was to acknowledge a long and worsened list of problems in Iraq: the government's capabilities still are limited, sectarian divisions have widened, members of Iraqi security forces are contributing to the violence and suffer from high absenteeism, fighting in Baghdad between Shiites and Sunnis has increased and is influencing the rest of the country, essential services still are lacking, Iraqi support for the U.S. is declining, and Iraqis - while committed to a unified country - are increasingly turning from the central government to pursue more narrow sectarian agendas to hedge their bets.

The president is arguing that a gradual increase in U.S. troops, opposed by some key military leaders as a potentially ineffective strain on the armed forces, is the answer - along with pumping an extra $1 billion into Iraq's faltering economy.

A breakdown of the additional troops was provided by a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the increase has not been officially announced:

-Bush is committing 17,500 U.S. combat troops to Baghdad. The first of five brigades will arrive by next Monday. The next is to arrive by Feb. 15 and the reminder will go in 30-day increments.

-The president is committing 4,000 more Marines to Anbar Province, a base of the Sunni insurgency and foreign al-Qaida fighters.

The president is ignoring a key recommendation of the bipartisan, independent Iraq Study Group, that he solicit help from Syria and Iran, the official said. Instead, he will call for increased operations against nations meddling in Iraq, aimed at Iran and, to a lesser degree, Syria.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-01-10-13-31-08
I guess he wants to see Americans rioting in the streets about his war.:rolleyes:
 

·
Always remembered in our hearts
Joined
·
82,160 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
More sneak peeks! ;)

-The president's upcoming supplemental budget request will include $5.6 billion to pay for his new commitment of troops.

-$414 million to expand the Provincial Reconstruction Teams and set up new Provincial Support Teams to help with rebuilding.

-$400 million in quick-response funds to address civilian problems.

-Allocate $10 billion to assist in reconstruction efforts.

-Deliver three brigades for Baghdad; the first on Feb. 1; then two more on Feb. 15.

-Crack down on insurgents and give U.S. and Iraqi troops the authority to pursue all extremists, regardless of sect of religion.

-He will not propose direct talks with Iran and Syria, and will insist that they become constructive, not meddling influences in Iraq and the region.

-Finalize an oil law that will share the profits of Iraq's resources among various ethnic sects and regions in a way that unites the country.

-Increase the transfer of security to Iraqi security forces by the end of the year.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...CS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-01-10-14-40-09
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,816 Posts
The Idiot and Chief not only cares little about our boys over there getting killed and maimed, but now he wants to up the ante to the America tax payer. I would much prefer our hard earned money go to securing our own country, funding Special Ops and improving our intelligence gathering ability.

This man is a disgrace.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
124,707 Posts
linskyjack said:
The Idiot and Chief not only cares little about our boys over there getting killed and maimed, but now he wants to up the ante to the America tax payer. I would much prefer our hard earned money go to securing our own country, funding Special Ops and improving our intelligence gathering ability.

This man is a disgrace.
:up:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,837 Posts
Now that we are sending them we need to take out AL Sadir and the ****e militias .
If we do not there is no change in mission .I have been saying for months we should have done that action ,probably hope in vain.
 

·
Always remembered in our hearts
Joined
·
82,160 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
"My administration will work with Republicans and Democrats to fashion a new way forward that can succeed in Iraq." - December 20, 2006, White House Indian Treaty Room

I think he left out a few people...:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,901 Posts
poochee said:
I guess he wants to see Americans rioting in the streets about his war.:rolleyes:
Ole Oldies exact words in another thread ;) .. maybe uni students will take up the banner, as they have in the past ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,816 Posts
Littlefield said:
Now that we are sending them we need to take out AL Sadir and the ****e militias .
If we do not there is no change in mission .I have been saying for months we should have done that action ,probably hope in vain.
LIttlefield, do you think that Malicki will countenance the taking out of the man who heads the terrorist group that gives his party power in Parliament? Littlefield, you remember when we we set up road blocks around Sadr city and Malicki insisted that we take them down? Do you really think he is going to allow us to go after Sadr? If Bush had the cajones to go before the nation and tell us that we are taking the gloves off and that we are going to arrest or kill the miscreant, I might support the surge. This is more of the same nonsense----buying time for Bush at the cost of our kids lives and our wealth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,901 Posts
Blackmirror said:
i found this last year
i think it says it all
i hope it doesnt offend anyone though
thatis not my intention
In my opinion it's hitting the nail on the head, so to speak :( .. Just hope our very own Tony doesn't go along with it by committing more Brits :mad:

Ollldie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,816 Posts
Littlefield, thats the point. I'm from the old school. When you fight a war you don't worry about the niceties. You kill the enemy. If you allow politics to hold sway, you don't win the war. All that Bush is giving us here is more of the same. When I fought in Nam, every grunt I knew felt that the US government had no intention of doing what they needed to do in order to win the war. Politics got in the way. Most of us began thinking that we shouldn't waste the men and material if we had no intention of doing what was NECESSARY to win the war. In the case of Vietnam, it would have meant bombing the **** system in the north and destroying the food supply of the north Vietnamese. Johnson and Nixon didn't have the stomach to do that, and the net result was a lost war and the death of 50,000 Americans.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,837 Posts
Pat Buchann said the other day that if Nixon had not been caught in Watergate Congress would have never cut funds ! The US would have won the Vietnam War.
On news just a minute ago Malikii ordered AlSadir's mens to put down arms. Hope in vain I am afraid.
I agree with you fully , when you fight go all out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,816 Posts
What I usually like to do in these cases is ask the following question: How would George Patton have handled the insurgency in Iraq? (That could be interchangeable with any conflict we send our men to fight). By the way, your post about what Malicki said about the Sadr Brigades----Now if he said, you disarm, or we will do it for you, then I would have been impressed. In other words, you do it or you get attacked.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,837 Posts
Yea my sister in law's Grandfather fought with Patton and he said if Patton had done it civilians might have gotten killed but Patton would have won in a month !
We need to use our men to cordon off the area and let Iraq soliders go house to house.
 

·
Always remembered in our hearts
Joined
·
82,160 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Does anyone agree that more troops need to be sent to Iraq?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,008 Posts
angelize56 said:
Does anyone agree that more troops need to be sent to Iraq?
Yep!!:up:
 

·
Always remembered in our hearts
Joined
·
82,160 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
1 - 20 of 124 Posts
Top