Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.
If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.
Subject: 100,000 More Troops
The US is planning on doubling the forces in Iraq in the next month. There are 125,000 Coalition troops there now, by the end of April there should be close to 225,000.
Although Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is putting the best face on it, ("It's a good plan and it was designed in a way that forces would continue to flow over a sustained period"), this looks like a major miscalculation by army planners.
Here's the last few paragraphs from a story from today on the military build-up:
Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the U.S. strategy "a brilliant plan" that has thrust invading troops more than 200 miles into Iraqi territory -- "on the doorstep of Baghdad" -- in a week of hostilities.
But analysts told Reuters U.S. military leaders may have erred in using an invasion force that is too small and not packing enough armor while leaving critical forces at home.
They also questioned why ground troops were rushed into Iraq without allowing U.S. and British air power first to clobber Iraqi military targets, why Pentagon officials assumed Iraq's military would surrender in droves and why no sizable invasion force was inserted in the north despite Rumsfeld's earlier promise to "work around" the Turkey problem.
Source: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030327/ts_nm/iraq_usa_force_dc_3
Subject: Re: 100,000 More Troops
Ok those opposed, let the spin begin. ::)
Subject: Re: 100,000 More Troops
Time to get the big hammer.
This will be a great collection of literature in a few years to learn out what truly was expected, intentions planned, sucesses and miscalculations, and what was rhetoric.
Subject: Re: 100,000 More Troops
Quoting:
And who is going to lead Iraq after Saddam's govt. is overthrown?
End Quote
I vote for Don Carlos! ;D ;D
Subject: Re: 100,000 More Troops
Quoting:
:) :D ;D
No way :D !
End Quote
Okay, well then maybe Juan Carlos? ;)
Subject: Re: 100,000 More Troops
Quoting:
And who is going to lead Iraq after Saddam's govt. is overthrown?
End Quote
Robert Mugabe
Subject: Re: 100,000 More Troops
Quoting:
Okay, well then maybe Juan Carlos? ;)
End Quote
The King Of Spain ??? :) :D ;D
Subject: Re: 100,000 More Troops
Quoting:
Robert Mugabe
End Quote
Or another Pinochet? Or maybe another Shah? Or maybe a push-over like Manual Noriega or Roberto D'Aubuisson? A USer-friendly Saddam? The possibilities are endless 8)
Subject: Re: 100,000 More Troops
Quoting:
The King Of Spain ??? :) :D ;D
End Quote
No no no! Not that Juan Carlos. You know, that dude that's gonna make Camus mandatory reading in all the Iraqi schools. They do all speak French over there, n'est-ce pas? :D
Subject: Re: 100,000 More Troops
Quoting:
And who is going to lead Iraq after Saddam's govt. is overthrown?
And...
End Quote
C'mon, I've think I have shown a lot of promise and ambition towards leading Iraq into western culturalization. Condos- Watersports- Games of Liesure-Steady service employment for the locals. What more do you need?
Subject: Re: 100,000 More Troops
On the news over here they are repeatedly saying 125,000 troops.
Must be that conversion rate from US to Australian hey ? :P
Subject: Re: 100,000 More Troops
Quoting:
The US is planning on doubling the forces in Iraq in the next month. There are 125,000 Coalition troops there now, by the end of April there should be close to 225,000.
Although Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is putting the best face on it, ("It's a good plan and it was designed in a way that forces would continue to flow over a sustained period"), this looks like a major miscalculation by army planners.
End Quote
Interesting article...
I caught a bit on the BBC feed a few nights ago about the idea that this war would be like nothing we'd ever seen before. Aside from the initial air campaign, this is starting to look like a lot of other wars. An anchor pointed out that the battle footage, soldiers shooting from the cover of vehicles, gritty air ... it could have been any war in the twentieth century, it seemed. The retired US Marine General he was interviewing acknowledged this, and pointed out that his boys were quite comfortable, indeed, in that kind of warfare; it's what they do.
So what if it's embarrassing for Bush that the war isn't going as planned? By all indications, that works to the US's favor. First off, Bush can't really embarrass himself any more than he already has; he can't possibly disgrace himself--if he ends up blowing it somehow, we'll all just say we knew he would all along. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. But a spectacular, new kind of war has the potential to go well afoul. So our Marines have to fight the kind of war they're best at ... I mean, really, when you're the United States, you have the unique position of benefiting unusually from your mistakes. So the fancy crap didn't work like we wanted. Well now, let's just implement the tested theory ....
And still, the day gets worse for the Iraqi soldiers.
Subject: Re: 100,000 More Troops
The funny, macabre thing about George W. is that in a few of his speeches he has hailed the rules of the Geneva convention for the treatment of prisoners of war and war engagement, but I don't know who really is going to place much faith on a bunch of marked rogues to actually carry around military manuals in the field.
The spin gets even funnier when they tell the public that Iraq's renegades are threatening civilians if they don't join in the fight. That sounds kind of weird to me that they should be privy to information as if they were personally there to witness such threats. I actually believe the Iraqis we're fighting are there on their own accord. I don't have any proof either that this is the way it is, but I think there is some loyalty there (if not for Saddam, then for the country itself - in a fight against foreign invaders). This also has to be put into consideration... or should have been seeing as to how they're calling for more back up.
Subject: Re: 100,000 More Troops
Quoting:
I vote for Don Carlos! ;D ;D
End Quote
Cute, very cute. Thanks - but no thanks ;D
Subject: Re: 100,000 More Troops
I think they should get rid of the Baath party and put in the Shower party. They're much more moderate, and they're a lot more refreshing, though experts will argue that Iraqi citizens may resist because they found the Baath party relaxing.