More troops?

[taranaki]

America is now begging the U.N. to supply more troops for the sequel to Vietnam....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...q-troops_x.htm

Top U.S. commander in Iraq says he needs more troops
BAGHDAD (AP) — The top U.S. commander in Iraq said Thursday he needs more international forces to deal with potential security threats — but he and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld both emphasized that they do not see a need for more U.S. troops.

Top U.S. commander in Iraq, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, says more international troops would be welcome.
By Ahmad Al-Rubaye, AFP

Their comments came a day after Washington began pushing a new U.N. resolution aimed at persuading more nations to contribute troops. On Thursday, Russia gave its first signal that it could send peacekeepers to Iraq, and Britain said it was considering whether to increase its force levels.


France and Germany have already indicated that they are not interested.

Why is the U.S. military not sending their own troops to finish what it started?Perhaps they are finally realising that what they want to achieve is a fantasy.

[slave]

Word has it that Bush wants out so he looks a bit more PC before his up-coming election campaign. Apparently we are sending more troops soon also.

[freakray]

Originally Posted by taranaki

Why is the U.S. military not sending their own troops to finish what it started?Perhaps they are finally realising that what they want to achieve is a fantasy.

Probably because they would rather see other countrie's troops dying (sp) needlessly instead of keeping sending their own troops to the slaughter for something they dreamt up in the first place.

[taranaki]

New Iraq Funds Request Tests Lawmakers



By ALAN FRAM
Associated Press Writer

September 4, 2003, 11:28 PM EDT


WASHINGTON -- Louder cries to seek foreign help, bigger federal deficits at home and the approach of next year's elections could complicate Congress' work on President Bush's next request for billions for U.S. activities in Iraq.

The Bush administration is considering asking lawmakers for $60 billion to $70 billion for the costs of U.S. military operations in Iraq and for rebuilding the shattered country, lawmakers and congressional aides said this week.

Final decisions have not been made and the figures could change, but Bush could formally request the funds next week, said officials speaking on condition of anonymity.

"I have not yet decided on a number because I have yet to hear" from the Office of Management and Budget, Iraqi administrator Paul Bremer or the Pentagon, Bush said Thursday evening on CNBC.

Ultimately, everyone expects Bush to get most of what he seeks from the Republican-run House and Senate. Most members of both parties will be eager to show voters their backing for American troops and efforts to thwart terrorism.

Seeking to nail down such support, Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois and Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas used a weekly closed-door meeting of rank-and-file House Republicans on Thursday to stress that they will strongly back whatever money is needed, several Republicans said.

Both men likened the war on terrorism to World War II -- a battle that must be won -- and told fellow GOP lawmakers it was no time to be worried about the cost.

"We're committed to support him (Bush) in whatever has to be done to secure Iraq and Afghanistan, and to do everything possible to protect us against terrorism," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla.

But with U.S. soldiers getting killed and wounded every week and record federal deficits approaching $500 billion, a vote in favor of the president's request won't necessarily be a painless one for lawmakers.

That will be increasingly true as the November 2004 elections draw nearer.

"It's like your building is half built, and the contractor comes in and says that to finish the building and put the roof on, it's going to cost a lot more," said Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., a stalwart Bush supporter. "What's your choice? You've got to put the roof on."

Underscoring the issue's sensitivity, Republican sources said congressional GOP leaders urged Bush at the White House on Wednesday to seek enough money to cover military and rebuilding costs for several months -- rather than breaking the request into pieces and forcing Congress to confront the matter repeatedly.

The political landscape has changed since last March, when -- just days after the first bombs blasted Baghdad -- Bush asked for $75 billion for U.S. operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. With few major changes, Congress had a near-$80 billion version of that bill on Bush's desk in less than three weeks.

The most intensive phase of combat is now long over. But a near-daily diet of American casualties has disquieted lawmakers and the public and fed a growing call for increased help from other countries.

Bush recently began seeking approval for a U.N. resolution that would call on other nations to contribute troops and money for reconstruction of Iraq. The administration will also try to rally other countries in two meetings next month in Spain to contribute to the reconstruction.

"We feel it is an international responsibility and we are going to work very hard to get contributions, said Undersecretary of State Alan Larson.

But the administration's wooing of the United Nations and allied countries is still a work in progress. That could sow uncertainty among lawmakers over how many taxpayers' dollars need to be committed anew in Iraq.

In addition, federal deficits look far worse today than they did last spring. While in March the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected next year's shortfall at $200 billion, it estimated last week that the red ink would hit $480 billion -- excluding any added spending in Iraq.

Related to that is lingering bipartisan resentment over repeated remarks by Bush that to control deficits, Congress must stop overspending. Members of both parties find it inconsistent for Bush to call for spending restraint, and then request extra spending totaling tens of billions of dollars.

"Let's not on the one hand bemoan the deficits, then on the other hand demand more spending," House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, told his panel Thursday, without mentioning names. "Let's all try and control ourselves. Let's all acknowledge that we're not going to have any extra money for a while."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Good to see that Mr Bush is prepared to spend money as well as lives on getting himself re-elected.The smarter move would be to hand over the money and the command structure to the U.N.,AND PULL OUT.The Iraqis clearly want nothing to do with Georges intrusion,and the U.N. couldn't possibly foul it up any further than crusadin' Bush has done already.

It's time to admit that America is losing the war.

[freakray]

Originally Posted by taranaki

Good to see that Mr Bush is prepared to spend money as well as lives on getting himself re-elected.The smarter move would be to hand over the money and the command structure to the U.N.,AND PULL OUT.The Iraqis clearly want nothing to do with Georges intrusion,and the U.N. couldn't possibly foul it up any further than crusadin' Bush has done already.

It's time to admit that America is losing the war.

C'mon now Naki, you know Bush will never pull the troops out of Iraq, that would be admitting defeat wouldn't it, America would never admit defeat nor making a mistake

Most of the people I work with still won't admit that America lost the fight in Vietnam, to them it was a 'strategic withdrawel'

[blindside.AMG]

It's all fine and dandy to criticize Amercia but who is Germany and France really hurting when they decide not to send troops. Think about, a few American soliders die every couple weeks but the people really getting terrorized are the innocent Iraqi citizens. Hundreds, maybe even thousands of Iraqis are dying and France and Germany are too stubborn to lend a helping hand. But then again, France wouldn't be much of help considering they drop dead at the slightest hint of heat.

[sidewinder69]

WTF is the guy above me talking about?

I'm only going to say two things, thank God I live in Canada, and we don't look so pussy/spineless/what-have-you now do we?

We look pretty damn smart, and not to forget our dollar keeps going up. Sorry, I had to get that out, I knew Bush was talking out of his ass the whole time.

BTW the aniversary of Sept. 11th is coming up so don't bother watching American television for about a month, cause you know they won't let that go. Make sure you buy your t-shirt and hat too, because you know someone will be selling them.

[jon@af]

Originally Posted by sidewinder69

BTW the aniversary of Sept. 11th is coming up so don't bother watching American television for about a month, cause you know they won't let that go.

Im not sure, but are you poking fun at the anniversary of an event killed thousands of people? Because if you are, that's not cool whatsoever. We wont let it go because it's something that shouldnt be forgotten. "yeah, 2500 or more people died, but DAMN it was 2 YEARS ago, JEEZ, they should let it go, I mean COME ON, they just flew planes into towers that represent trade and prosperity, why on EARTH would anyone want to keep that in their head?!"

EDIT: For whoever read this and sent me a little message saying (and I quote) "how can you live with yourself you piece of shit!" WHat I said above was mocking what someone else said, Not mocking the anniversary of the event, just thought I would point that out in case someone doesnt read the entire post.

[blindside.AMG]

Originally Posted by sidewinder69

I'm only going to say two things, thank God I live in Canada, and we don't look so pussy/spineless/what-have-you now do we?

Buddy, you live in Canada. Nuff said. The only reason you are a successful country is because of America. Now don't bite the hand that feeds you.

[zebrathree]

Oh God. Read up on Canada too, will you blindside.

[blindside.AMG]

Originally Posted by zebrathree

Oh God. Read up on Canada too, will you blindside.

Please explain. I don't understand.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by blindside.AMG

Please explain. I don't understand.

Of course you don't.Anyone who still believes that the world revolves around the White House must have a very limited understanding of world history and current affairs.

France and Germany are not hurting their own men,or innocent Iraqis,by poking their noses into a war based on lies.Bush is single-handedly trying to prolong the conflict ,while trying to drag more and more countries into his failed crusade in order to give it some legitimacy.Perhaps if you look at the costs,both in dollar and in human terms,and see how little has been achieved,you might just wake up to the fact that your leader is screwing you.

[blindside.AMG]

Originally Posted by taranaki

Of course you don't.Anyone who still believes that the world revolves around the White House must have a very limited understanding of world history and current affairs.

France and Germany are not hurting their own men,or innocent Iraqis,by poking their noses into a war based on lies.Bush is single-handedly trying to prolong the conflict ,while trying to drag more and more countries into his failed crusade in order to give it some legitimacy.Perhaps if you look at the costs,both in dollar and in human terms,and see how little has been achieved,you might just wake up to the fact that your leader is screwing you.

I guess you're right. Saddam Hussein should have control of the Middle East.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by blindside.AMG

I guess you're right. Saddam Hussein should have control of the Middle East.

Yep,and he'd get it really easily with all of those WMD's just laying around,full of poison gas ansd nuclear warheads....

Face facts.George fucked about with something that had absolutely nothing to do with him,and you and every other American will be seriously out of pocket for years to come,achieving nothing except a humilliating withdrawal.Saddam?You can't find him.Bin Laden?Can't find him either.WMD's....nope,can't find them either.Way to run a war,guys,can't wait for the next round of bullshit claims under the banner of fighting terrorism..........

[blindside.AMG]

Originally Posted by taranaki

Yep,and he'd get it really easily with all of those WMD's just laying around,full of poison gas ansd nuclear warheads....

Face facts.George fucked about with something that had absolutely nothing to do with him,and you and every other American will be seriously out of pocket for years to come,achieving nothing except a humilliating withdrawal.Saddam?You can't find him.Bin Laden?Can't find him either.WMD's....nope,can't find them either.Way to run a war,guys,can't wait for the next round of bullshit claims under the banner of fighting terrorism..........

Very easy to say when your country doesn't really give a shit!!!