PDA

View Full Version : Pentagon weighs troop extension for Iraq



LiberalNation
04-11-2007, 09:06 PM
Sucks for them, seems like stuff like this would be really bad for moral. They were all planning to go home on x date then bam your hafta stay 3 more months. Why not just send in fresh toops from the US or all the nice bases we have around the world I wonder.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070411/ap_on_go_ot/iraq_us_troops;_ylt=Ahldc1a_UoryfmVQe3hbFIADW7oF

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is considering stretching the tour of duty for every active-duty Army unit in Iraq to 15 months instead of 12 as the military struggles to supply enough troops for the conflict.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates could make a decision on the proposal in the coming days, said a defense official speaking on condition of anonymity because the plan has not been approved.

It is the third option to become known in the last several days in what has become a drumbeat of unsettling news for a military strained by two wars over the last five years.

Officials on Monday announced some 13,000 National Guard troops were receiving orders alerting them to prepare for possible deployment to Iraq late this year, which would be the second tour for several thousand of them. Officials said those four infantry combat brigades come from Arkansas, Indiana, Oklahoma and Ohio.

The Guard units would serve as replacement forces in the regular troop rotation for the war, and would not be connected to President Bush's military buildup for security operations in Baghdad, the Pentagon said.

Word has also emerged that Defense Department officials were considering a plan to extend by up to four months the tours of duty for up to 15,000 U.S. troops already in Iraq as a way to maintain the buildup past the summer.

There are currently 145,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and when the buildup is complete in late May or early June, there would be more than 160,000, officials have said.

grunt
04-11-2007, 09:17 PM
You know...being extended does suck. There are a lot of things that suck about being a soldier or Marine. Those things, however, don't outweigh the good. Any GOOD Marine or soldier will suck it up, throw some dirt on it and push forward.

Now, I do wish that every single American Military man and women were at home right now with their families...but guess what? Fighting wars are what Marines and soldiers do. I never, (and I'm positive the majority of America's fighting force feel the same), wanted sympathy or favoritism from people like you...just some respect and gratitude. So cry someone else your river, asshole...the TROOPS ARE FINE!

LiberalNation
04-11-2007, 09:26 PM
The troops may be fine but this still sucks for them and I bet they aren’t liking it one bit. Anyway has for sympathy, not from me. It's a volunteer force, they shouldn't have joined if they didn't want things like this to happen.

stephanie
04-11-2007, 09:35 PM
The troops may be fine but this still sucks for them and I bet they arenít liking it one bit. Anyway has for sympathy, not from me. It's a volunteer force, they shouldn't have joined if they didn't want things like this to happen.


Aaa.
So you just posted this article and at first pretended to care...So you could turn around and spew your hate at them....

Class act

:pee:

LiberalNation
04-11-2007, 09:38 PM
No, I first posted this article because I had the thought sucks for them after reading it and wanted to exspress that.

Gunny
04-11-2007, 10:31 PM
You know...being extended does suck. There are a lot of things that suck about being a soldier or Marine. Those things, however, don't outweigh the good. Any GOOD Marine or soldier will suck it up, throw some dirt on it and push forward.

Now, I do wish that every single American Military man and women were at home right now with their families...but guess what? Fighting wars are what Marines and soldiers do. I never, (and I'm positive the majority of America's fighting force feel the same), wanted sympathy or favoritism from people like you...just some respect and gratitude. So cry someone else your river, asshole...the TROOPS ARE FINE!

My 6 month deployment in 1990 ended up being 301 days. Yeah it sucked, and yeah we hated it. So what's new? We did our jobs. When we were finished, THEN we went home.

It's the job, and nobody twisted our arms and made us go.

Gaffer
04-12-2007, 12:09 AM
I think the extensions are geared toward bigger things than just the fact of not enough troops. Somethings in the works. A surge, extended time in theater, three carrier groups in the gulf. My military experience tells me, somethings up. And it ahs everything to do with iran.

stephanie
04-12-2007, 12:11 AM
I think the extensions are geared toward bigger things than just the fact of not enough troops. Somethings in the works. A surge, extended time in theater, three carrier groups in the gulf. My military experience tells me, somethings up. And it ahs everything to do with iran.

Could be gaffer....
I'm wondering the same.

Samantha
04-12-2007, 12:18 AM
Are you people FOR overextending our troops and sending them out without the proper equipment because we just can't build it fast enough?

I would have thought you supported the troops.

stephanie
04-12-2007, 12:27 AM
Are you people FOR overextending our troops and sending them out without the proper equipment because we just can't build it fast enough?

I would have thought you supported the troops.

No..we people aren't for that...
What are you people for???

Cutting off their funding while their still fighting..
Take your high and mighty bullshit and stuff it up You peoples know what..:laugh2:

I laugh at YOU people just like I laugh at Scary Ried...:cheers2:

Gaffer
04-12-2007, 01:51 AM
Are you people FOR overextending our troops and sending them out without the proper equipment because we just can't build it fast enough?

I would have thought you supported the troops.

It's the lib congress that wants to cut the funding for the troops, not us. It's not that its not being built, it needs to be paid for. Any shortage cause by the libs will only effect troops stateside. iraq and afgan will get all they need.

manu1959
04-12-2007, 01:54 AM
Are you people FOR overextending our troops and sending them out without the proper equipment because we just can't build it fast enough?

I would have thought you supported the troops.

the dems control the house and senate.....why are they doing this to these poor boys....

Samantha
04-12-2007, 02:16 AM
The funding has been there for 5 years. The troops are in the battlefield right now without enough equipment. Are you guys even paying attention at all? Today it was announced that instead of 12 month tours, they all have to stay for 15 months instead. This isn't the congress, this is the US government, the Pentagon. Gates was just on cspan today talking about how the Generals ask the government for equipment and it takes too long to get it to the troops.

The White House hasn't been on the ball, on this war.

He says now, finally, there will be a civilian in the White House appointed to coordinate and to contact, who will cut through the red tape. It wasn't the Democrats who prevented this from being done sooner. It was the Bush administration.

You can't blame the past on the latest war funding bill waiting to be passed.

Do you guys get all your news from your fellow righties on this site, or do you watch cspan and find out what is actually going on? It seems you just want to pretend it's all going swimmingly and close your eyes to the facts.

manu1959
04-12-2007, 02:21 AM
The funding has been there for 5 years. The troops are in the battlefield right now without enough equipment. Are you guys even paying attention at all? Today it was announced that instead of 12 month tours, they all have to stay for 15 months instead. This isn't the congress, this is the US government, the Pentagon. Gates was just on cspan today talking about how the Generals ask the government for equipment and it takes too long to get it to the troops.

The White House hasn't been on the ball, on this war.

He says now, finally, there will be a civilian in the White House appointed to coordinate and to contact, who will cut through the red tape. It wasn't the Democrats who prevented this from being done sooner. It was the Bush administration.

You can't blame the past on the latest war funding bill waiting to be passed.

Do you guys get all your news from your fellow righties on this site, or do you watch cspan and find out what is actually going on? It seems you just want to pretend it's all going swimmingly and close your eyes to the facts.

all yall control the house and senate...do something....fix it ... stop complaining and blaming and do something ...

stephanie
04-12-2007, 02:28 AM
all yall control the house and senate...do something....fix it ... stop complaining and blaming and do something ...

What the hell??

Fix-Democrats??? those two words don't comingle...

Whine=Democrats
Cut and run=Democrat
claim defeat=Democrats
President is a fuck up=Democrats...
sacrifice our troops for political gain=Democrats

That's all they got....:laugh2:

Samantha
04-12-2007, 02:32 AM
all yall control the house and senate...do something....fix it ... stop complaining and blaming and do something ...Do you read the news at all? Congress has passed bills to do just that, but Bush is going to veto.


What the hell??

Fix-Democrats??? those two words don't comingle...

Whine=Democrats
Cut and run=Democrat
claim defeat=Democrats
President is a fuck up=Democrats...
sacrifice our troops for political gain=Democrats

That's all they got....:laugh2:Do you ever discuss the issue? Is that too hard?

manu1959
04-12-2007, 02:36 AM
Do you read the news at all? Congress has passed bills to do just that, but Bush is going to veto.



has bush vetoed it? nope....pass another bill...call a special election....impeach bush....go to the white house and "negotiate" with bush .... fucking hell you all give up way to easy

stephanie
04-12-2007, 02:37 AM
Do you read the news at all? Congress has passed bills to do just that, but Bush is going to veto.

Do you ever discuss the issue? Is that too hard?


Reed? wht is tat? We al ned yu to splain to usems....

Wat is Reed??::poke:

Gaffer
04-12-2007, 02:43 AM
The funding has been there for 5 years. The troops are in the battlefield right now without enough equipment. Are you guys even paying attention at all? Today it was announced that instead of 12 month tours, they all have to stay for 15 months instead. This isn't the congress, this is the US government, the Pentagon. Gates was just on cspan today talking about how the Generals ask the government for equipment and it takes too long to get it to the troops.

The White House hasn't been on the ball, on this war.

He says now, finally, there will be a civilian in the White House appointed to coordinate and to contact, who will cut through the red tape. It wasn't the Democrats who prevented this from being done sooner. It was the Bush administration.

You can't blame the past on the latest war funding bill waiting to be passed.

Do you guys get all your news from your fellow righties on this site, or do you watch cspan and find out what is actually going on? It seems you just want to pretend it's all going swimmingly and close your eyes to the facts.

The troops are not short on equipment. They have had whatever they needed for the last five years. cspan is not the know all end all of reporting. You might want to check out some milblog sites, you know, military guys that are there and write about what they do everyday. There are a number of good reporters that keep daily blogs as well.

The libs are holding up the funds. They have passed a bill that Bush will veto and will have to go back an do another bill or pass some emergency spending measure for the troops. If they don't do that who is hurting the troops? The libs wanted the power, now they have the responsibility that goes with it.

And I reffer to libs because there are not that many dems left in the party.

Gunny
04-12-2007, 10:25 AM
Are you people FOR overextending our troops and sending them out without the proper equipment because we just can't build it fast enough?

I would have thought you supported the troops.

Overextending troops to accomplish the mission is SOP.

Get a new line. That "without proper equipment" one has been shot full of holes so many times it looks like a sieve.

Gunny
04-12-2007, 10:27 AM
The funding has been there for 5 years. The troops are in the battlefield right now without enough equipment. Are you guys even paying attention at all? Today it was announced that instead of 12 month tours, they all have to stay for 15 months instead. This isn't the congress, this is the US government, the Pentagon. Gates was just on cspan today talking about how the Generals ask the government for equipment and it takes too long to get it to the troops.

The White House hasn't been on the ball, on this war.

He says now, finally, there will be a civilian in the White House appointed to coordinate and to contact, who will cut through the red tape. It wasn't the Democrats who prevented this from being done sooner. It was the Bush administration.

You can't blame the past on the latest war funding bill waiting to be passed.

Do you guys get all your news from your fellow righties on this site, or do you watch cspan and find out what is actually going on? It seems you just want to pretend it's all going swimmingly and close your eyes to the facts.

Perhaps you pay attention to the wrong things. Stop attempting to perpetuate baselss, loony-left myths.

Gunny
04-12-2007, 10:28 AM
Do you read the news at all? Congress has passed bills to do just that, but Bush is going to veto.

Do you ever discuss the issue? Is that too hard?

Congress has passed a bill with the Dem's plan for losing attached to it. I wouldn't sign it either. Perhaps you didn't understand English when gaffer said it the first time?

The troops in the field will get funded. Y'all are just screwing the ones in support.

Gunny
04-12-2007, 10:30 AM
The troops are not short on equipment. They have had whatever they needed for the last five years. cspan is not the know all end all of reporting. You might want to check out some milblog sites, you know, military guys that are there and write about what they do everyday. There are a number of good reporters that keep daily blogs as well.

The libs are holding up the funds. They have passed a bill that Bush will veto and will have to go back an do another bill or pass some emergency spending measure for the troops. If they don't do that who is hurting the troops? The libs wanted the power, now they have the responsibility that goes with it.

And I reffer to libs because there are not that many dems left in the party.

Damned if THAT doesn't say it all. It's too bad too. The Dems used to stand for something, and actually have balls before the loony-left led by Jimmy-boy took over and ran us all out.

gabosaurus
04-13-2007, 01:55 AM
I think it is a great idea for the Bushies. The longer the troops remain in Iraq, the greater chance they have of getting killed. No muss, no fuss, no long term care to worry about, no extended benefits to be paid out.
The Bush War gets deeper and deeper into the muck. Pretty soon, they will be kidnapping people off the street and sending them into combat.

I hope the Bushies know that they are sabotaging military recruiting with their continuing lies and misstatements. Who is going to join up when they know they could be stuck in combat indefinitely?
Not that the Bush apologists care. They are just enjoying the continuing carnage.

stephanie
04-13-2007, 01:57 AM
I think it is a great idea for the Bushies. The longer the troops remain in Iraq, the greater chance they have of getting killed. No muss, no fuss, no long term care to worry about, no extended benefits to be paid out. The Bush War gets deeper and deeper into the muck. Pretty soon, they will be kidnapping people off the street and sending them into combat.

I hope the Bushies know that they are sabotaging military recruiting with their continuing lies and misstatements. Who is going to join up when they know they could be stuck in combat indefinitely?
Not that the Bush apologists care. They are just enjoying the continuing carnage.

Well....at least your true colors just shined through...:pee:

Gunny
04-13-2007, 08:17 AM
I think it is a great idea for the Bushies. The longer the troops remain in Iraq, the greater chance they have of getting killed. No muss, no fuss, no long term care to worry about, no extended benefits to be paid out. The Bush War gets deeper and deeper into the muck. Pretty soon, they will be kidnapping people off the street and sending them into combat.

I hope the Bushies know that they are sabotaging military recruiting with their continuing lies and misstatements. Who is going to join up when they know they could be stuck in combat indefinitely?
Not that the Bush apologists care. They are just enjoying the continuing carnage.


Wrong. The families of those troops are still entitled to military benefits until the woman remarries and/or the children reach the ageof majority.

I DO wish they'd kidnap you and send you. I'm just not sure the militay has enough duct tape to shut that gap under your nose that runs insessently and incoherently, proving by the post you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about most of the time.

gabosaurus
04-13-2007, 10:39 AM
Gunny, your extreme silliness is always welcome. Not that you really care who lives and dies in Bush's War. Just as long as it continues indefinitely.

darin
04-13-2007, 10:42 AM
For the record - the Units around here which are about to deploy have the HIGHEST morale levels. :)

Gunny
04-13-2007, 11:06 AM
Gunny, your extreme silliness is always welcome. Not that you really care who lives and dies in Bush's War. Just as long as it continues indefinitely.

Yeah, right. Never crossed your mind I might actually know and have served with some of those "troops," has it?

I have no desire for an indefinite occupation -- not to be confused with a war. We need to turn it back into a war, clean house, and leave.

Gunny
04-13-2007, 11:07 AM
For the record - the Units around here which are about to deploy have the HIGHEST morale levels. :)

Of course they do. Low morale is just another left-wingnut lie they have perpetuated into a myth.

manu1959
04-13-2007, 11:11 AM
I think it is a great idea for the Bushies. The longer the troops remain in Iraq, the greater chance they have of getting killed. No muss, no fuss, no long term care to worry about, no extended benefits to be paid out.
The Bush War gets deeper and deeper into the muck. Pretty soon, they will be kidnapping people off the street and sending them into combat.

I hope the Bushies know that they are sabotaging military recruiting with their continuing lies and misstatements. Who is going to join up when they know they could be stuck in combat indefinitely?
Not that the Bush apologists care. They are just enjoying the continuing carnage.

can you explain to me what the job descirption of the military is?

also, could you direct me to the recruitment numbers your statement that bush and co will be kidnapping people off the street would lead one to believe that no one is signing up....

Gaffer
04-13-2007, 03:04 PM
She can't explain what she had for breakfast unless it involves Bush hatred. I really don't understand where these people come from. They are real true America haters.

Gaffer
04-13-2007, 03:08 PM
Gunny, your extreme silliness is always welcome. Not that you really care who lives and dies in Bush's War. Just as long as it continues indefinitely.

I would not care if you and your ilk die in this war. Your al queda brothers are dying by the thousands now. Why don't you go join them?

gabosaurus
04-14-2007, 12:44 AM
I would not care if you and your ilk die in this war. Your al queda brothers are dying by the thousands now. Why don't you go join them?

I am not in favor of the war. Since you love the conflict, you are the one that should be in the Middle East. Of course, you aren't. Which is why you support the carnage. Because it doesn't involve you.

TheStripey1
04-14-2007, 01:18 AM
I am not in favor of the war. Since you love the conflict, you are the one that should be in the Middle East. Of course, you aren't. Which is why you support the carnage. Because it doesn't involve you.


gabby? I don't like gaffer as much as any lefty here, but at least gaffer stood up like a man when it was his turn to stand... unlike many here who just crawled away on their bellies...

IMO, He EARNED his hawk feathers...

Samantha
04-14-2007, 01:26 AM
gabby? I don't like gaffer as much as any lefty here, but at least gaffer stood up like a man when it was his turn to stand... unlike many here who just crawled away on their bellies...

IMO, He EARNED his hawk feathers...Well said.

Thank you for serving our country gaffer.

TheStripey1
04-14-2007, 02:09 AM
Well said.

Thank you for serving our country gaffer.

Don't expect him to break out the beer and toast your support for his service... cuz it's not gonna happen...

I'll toast you for it tho...

:beer:

Gunny
04-14-2007, 10:30 AM
I am not in favor of the war. Since you love the conflict, you are the one that should be in the Middle East. Of course, you aren't. Which is why you support the carnage. Because it doesn't involve you.

:lame2:

I supported it when I was there, and I'd go back in a minute. Your opinion is based on your ignorance, and Berkeley-brainwashed loony political ideas.

Gunny
04-14-2007, 10:32 AM
Don't expect him to break out the beer and toast your support for his service... cuz it's not gonna happen...

I'll toast you for it tho...

:beer:

Why should he? That token, "heartfelt", obligatory "thank you for your service" lefties toss out there to maintain their distance from the truth means exactly what in reality?

Psychoblues
04-16-2007, 02:54 AM
You and stripey both can kiss my nekid ass.



Why should he? That token, "heartfelt", obligatory "thank you for your service" lefties toss out there to maintain their distance from the truth means exactly what in reality?

Us lefties are also veterans and even though my national wars are done forever I respect every person that chooses to put on the uniform of United States Of America. I realize most of them are much too young and too ignorant to understand the politics and discriminations that we discuss on this advanced level of studies of the dilemmas of humanity but I completely understand their committments and ideologies.

I don't think you have a fucking clue as to what it is all about. Do you? Either of you?

Gunny
04-16-2007, 08:51 AM
You and stripey both can kiss my nekid ass.




Us lefties are also veterans and even though my national wars are done forever I respect every person that chooses to put on the uniform of United States Of America. I realize most of them are much too young and too ignorant to understand the politics and discriminations that we discuss on this advanced level of studies of the dilemmas of humanity but I completely understand their committments and ideologies.

I don't think you have a fucking clue as to what it is all about. Do you? Either of you?

Psycho, can you post ANYTHING without proving you're a dork? Stripey IS a liberal, AND a vet..:laugh2:

I respect those who have served honorably for their service regardless their political ideology. Nor was my comment aimed at liberal vets who voice their opinions on the topic. They have a right.

My comment was aimed at those who think by saying "I support the troops" it's magically so, and negates their actions/behavior to the contrary.

Having served in every branch in every capacity from WWI to the present, I would think you of all people would get that.:laugh2:

gabosaurus
04-16-2007, 10:43 AM
If you support those who "honorably served their country," why do you still support Bush? As opposed to, say, John Kerry?

The current military is an occupation. It is not the same as in the early 20th Century, when the United States was still fighting valid wars. In the past 50 years, American presidents have picked and chosen their conflicts according to their whims. They then send American troops, who merely do what they are instructed to do.
I don't see how Iraq is a valid conflict. You can't make a case for Iraq being a larger threat than other dictatorships. It was merely a personal grudge that Bush chose to settle by military force.

There are tons of very honorable professions in the current United States. The military is one of them.

Gunny
04-16-2007, 11:19 AM
If you support those who "honorably served their country," why do you still support Bush? As opposed to, say, John Kerry?

The current military is an occupation. It is not the same as in the early 20th Century, when the United States was still fighting valid wars. In the past 50 years, American presidents have picked and chosen their conflicts according to their whims. They then send American troops, who merely do what they are instructed to do.
I don't see how Iraq is a valid conflict. You can't make a case for Iraq being a larger threat than other dictatorships. It was merely a personal grudge that Bush chose to settle by military force.

There are tons of very honorable professions in the current United States. The military is one of them.

President Bush honorably served his country as did John Kerry, as far as the paperwork goes.

If you want to get into partisan accusations, I can forgive a slacker who did his best to slide through unscathed FAR easier than I will forgive one who demonized the men he served with lying before congress in order to give a jump start to a fledgling political career.

Going to say he didn't lie? Cool. Then, as an officer and gentleman serving in the US military he would be guilty of dereliction for failure to immediately "report all violations of orders I am instructed to enforce;" which, DOES include criminal actions as specified by the UCMJ. Seem sit took him a few years to report the alleged violations, and he reported them to the media and Congress, not immediately to the next higher up in his chain of commad.

That, of course, kinda' tarnishes the "honorable" tag though. doesn't it?

I have never attempted to make a case that Iraq was any more a threat than "other dictatorships."

Neither have I contended that there are no honorable professions except serving in the military. Nor have I ever contended that military service is the only way one may serve the Nation. Seems you read a bit more than is there.

"Serving the Nation" comes in various forms. Just as doing the Nation a disservice does.

Gaffer
04-16-2007, 12:22 PM
If you support those who "honorably served their country," why do you still support Bush? As opposed to, say, John Kerry?

The current military is an occupation. It is not the same as in the early 20th Century, when the United States was still fighting valid wars. In the past 50 years, American presidents have picked and chosen their conflicts according to their whims. They then send American troops, who merely do what they are instructed to do.
I don't see how Iraq is a valid conflict. You can't make a case for Iraq being a larger threat than other dictatorships. It was merely a personal grudge that Bush chose to settle by military force.

There are tons of very honorable professions in the current United States. The military is one of them.

Bush served in the ANG and never propsed to be a hero. kerry sreved in the navy and proposed to be a hero and wounded, then proposed to be a war criminal. He also used the three wounds and your out rule to get out of Vietnam. He used the navy service as his kennedy method to get to the white house.

The current fighting in iraq is an occupation just as you say. We are occupying it to set up a government that can run the country and keep its citizens safe. We did the same thing in Germany and Japan. There was an insergency in Germany for ten years after the war ended.

As for picking and chosing war. I'd rather chose a war and take it to them than to sit back and wait for them to come to me. And be on a constant defense mode. That's how WW2 came about.

iraq had NOTHING to do with a personal grudge. It was the threat saddam posed to the world that brought about the invasion. The personal grudge bullshit is as appropriate as the war was started for oil. Silly nonsense.

Yes there are tons of non-military professions in the US that are very honorable. I have worked in a few of them. Most jobs are honorable. What's you point?