Pentagon Plans to Send More Troops to Iraq (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050808/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_us_military_3;_ylt=AvCuHPEWOZ3CSQOz82YoNixsbE wB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

WASHINGTON - Anticipating a new burst of insurgent violence, the Pentagon plans to expand the U.S. force in Iraq to improve security for a planned October referendum and a December election.

Although much public attention has been focused recently on the prospect of reducing U.S. forces next spring and summer, defense officials foresee the likelihood of first increasing troop levels.

Lawrence Di Rita, spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, noted Monday that troop levels were raised last January during Iraq's first elections, and then returned to the current level of about 138,000 several weeks later.

"It's perfectly plausible to assume we'll do the same thing for this election," he said, while stressing that no decisions had been made.

Dissimilar units are being retrained to be Military Police.

What's the problem with providing extra security so that the Iraqis can safely vote?

The terrorists tried to disrupt the provisional elections early this year - if you think they aren't going to escalate the attempt to derail the upcoming ones, you don't understand their agenda.

More "free and fair elections" which apparently can't be conducted without 100,000 armed American troops, eh? Sounds like Iraq is on the fast-track democracy.

I wonder how many American troops will be killed while overseeing the sham elections in Iraq this time.

If life sucks so much and the world is hopeless, WAYSA?

(BTW, you can settle your $5 debt by donating to The Ayn Rand Institute.)

I'm not the topic of this thread, bo, but thanks for your concern. I know its more fun to think of more hilariously clever ways to insult me than think about all the American troops who will be killled this year for your ideological goose-chase. I'd avoid the issue if I were you too.

More "free and fair elections" which apparently can't be conducted without 100,000 armed American troops, eh? Sounds like Iraq is on the fast-track democracy.

I wonder how many American troops will be killed while overseeing the sham elections in Iraq this time.

Sham? Such negativity even for a Tuesday.

I'm not the topic of this thread, bo, but thanks for your concern. I know its more fun to think of more hilariously clever ways to insult me than think about all the American troops who will be killled this year for your ideological goose-chase. I'd avoid the issue if I were you too.

Whatever.

I'd really like to see you propose realistic ways to improve the world instead of just moaning and groaning about how everything just SUX.

Is there ever any good news? I think DHM could use a beer and a bottle of prozac.

What's the problem with providing extra security so that the Iraqis can safely vote?

If that's directed to me, I actually didn't say there was any problem. We ought to do whatever is necessary to stabilize the situation in Iraq, now that we're there.

Still dumb as **** that we're there, though.

I thought we had "broken the back" of the insurgency about a half dozen times so far, and ended "major combat operations" at least once. Is it possible that someone's been lying?

I thought we had "broken the back" of the insurgency about a half dozen times so far, and ended "major combat operations" at least once. Is it possible that someone's been lying?

Nah, they don't lie, remember when Dick Cheney recently said the insurgency was in it's last throes? Well Rummy said the last throes could goon for a dozen years :D So Dick wasn't lying...


"Rumsfeld said: "We're not going to win against the insurgency. The Iraqi people are going to win against the insurgency. That insurgency could go on for any number of years. Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years."


"US war objectives have been ratcheted down in recent months from establishing stability in Iraq to training sufficient numbers of Iraqi government troops to fight the insurgency independently. The policy of lowering expectations however was thrown into confusion by Mr Cheney's claim that the insurgency was "in its last throes". The claim appeared to take other administration officials by surprise and forced them into a string of semantic contortions to explain it.

"The fact is that if you look at the context of his remarks, last throes could be a violent last throe, just as well as a placid or calm last throe. Look it up in the dictionary," Mr Rumsfeld said yesterday. "


http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/resist/2005/0627decade.htm

The terrorists can't persist forever. As in any war it comes down to the most determined, but in present conflicts the determination of western powers is measured largely by the amount of money necessary to obtain victory. This process of victory must have been significantly easier in medevil times.

Whatever.

I'd really like to see you propose realistic ways to improve the world instead of just moaning and groaning about how everything just SUX.

Well then how about you stop reading my posts, because it would take a team of angels twenty years to fgure a way out of the crab-pot that you and your BushCo team have droppped the American people into. And that's if they didn't have to contend with the millions of numbskulls who actually thought this war was a good idea at one time, and the several dozen who still do.

Is there ever any good news? I think DHM could use a beer and a bottle of prozac.

:rolleyes: You're one to talk. Where's that revolutionary fire when I need it, confederate?

Who or what is DHM?

Who or what is DHM?
drunken hearted man aka Ras Bizarre High.

Oh. My first thought was DHM, but he was banned. Thanks for the info.

The terrorists can't persist forever.


Been sixty years of this same tit-for-tat garbage in Palestine against the Israeli occupation, and they haven't lost steam yet.