View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 25th, 2014, 4:02 pm



Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 4 more years 
Author Message
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: January 6th, 2005, 10:54 am
Posts: 2274
Location: South Quad- Ann Arbor
Post 4 more years
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20050820/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_chief_interview_5


I know that the miltary has to plan for the worst possible senario, but it is a little freaky talking about 4 more years there.


Quote:
Army Planning for 4 More Years in Iraq By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
1 hour, 35 minutes ago



The Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of soldiers in Iraq ? well over 100,000 ? for four more years, the Army's top general said Saturday.

In an Associated Press interview, Gen. Peter Schoomaker said the Army is prepared for the "worst case" in terms of the required level of troops in Iraq. He said the number could be adjusted lower if called for by slowing the force rotation or by shortening tours for soldiers.

Schoomaker said commanders in Iraq and others who are in the chain of command will decide how many troops will be needed next year and beyond. His responsibility is to provide them, trained and equipped.

About 138,000 U.S. troops, including about 25,000 Marines, are now in Iraq.

"We are now into '07-'09 in our planning," Schoomaker said, having completed work on the set of combat and support units that will be rotated into Iraq over the coming year for 12-month tours of duty.

Schoomaker's comments come amid indications from Bush administration officials and commanders in Iraq that the size of the U.S. force may be scaled back next year if certain conditions are achieved.

Among those conditions: an Iraqi constitution must be drafted in coming days; it must be approved in a national referendum; and elections must be held for a new government under that charter.

Schoomaker, who spoke aboard an Army jet on the trip back to Washington from Kansas City, Mo., made no predictions about the pace of political progress in Iraq. But he said he was confident the Army could provide the current number of forces to fight the insurgency for many more years. The 2007-09 rotation he is planning would go beyond President Bush's term in office, which ends in January 2009.

Schoomaker was in Kansas City for a dinner Friday hosted by the Military Order of the World Wars, a veterans' organization.

"We're staying 18 months to two years ahead of ourselves" in planning which active-duty and National Guard and Reserve units will be provided to meet the commanders' needs, Schoomaker said in the interview.

The main active-duty combat units that are scheduled to go to Iraq in the coming year are the 101st Airborne Division, based at Fort Campbell, Ky., and the 4th Infantry Division from Fort Hood, Texas. Both did one-year tours earlier in the war.

The Army has changed the way it arranges troop rotations.

Instead of sending a full complement of replacement forces each 12-month cycle, it is stretching out the rotation over two years.

The current rotation, for 2005-07, will overlap with the 2006-08 replacements. Beyond that, the Army is piecing together the plan for the 2007-09 switch, Schoomaker said.

With the recent deployments of National Guard brigades from Georgia and Pennsylvania, the National Guard has seven combat brigades in Iraq ? the most of the entire war ? plus thousands of support troops.

Along with the Army Reserve and Marine Reserve, they account for about 40 percent of the total U.S. forces in Iraq. Schoomaker said that will be scaled back next year to about 25 percent as newly expanded active-duty divisions such as the 101st Airborne enter the rotation.

August has been the deadliest month of the war for the National Guard and Reserve, with at least 42 fatalities thus far. Schoomaker disputed the suggestion by some that the Guard and Reserve units are not fully prepared for the hostile environment of Iraq.

"I'm very confident that there is no difference in the preparation" of active-duty soldiers and the reservists, who normally train one weekend a month and two weeks each summer, unless they are mobilized. Once called to active duty, they go through the same training as active-duty units.

In internal surveys, some in the reserve forces have indicated to Army leaders that they think they are spending too much time in pre-deployment training, not too little, Schoomaker said.

"Consistently, what we've been (hearing) is, `We're better than you think we are, and we could do this faster,'" he said. "I can promise you that we're not taking any risk in terms of what we're doing to prepare people."

___

On the Net:

Schoomaker's official biography at http://www.army.mil/leaders/csa/bio.htm

_________________
"If he isn't the best football player, the best runner, that the Lord has ever made, then the Lord has yet to make one." Wayne Fontes on Barry.
Image


August 20th, 2005, 9:31 pm
Profile WWW
Varsity 1st Team

Joined: August 16th, 2004, 11:58 pm
Posts: 251
Location: Saginaw,MI
Post 
Well that sucks..in the mail the other day I got my registration notice for the military, since I turned 18 on aug25th. Bring the troops home.

_________________
Image

GO STATE!
2005 Austin Regional Champs!
4/7 years Final Four apperances
5/7 years Elite 8 apperances

Michigan...
Missed 64 team tourney AND,NIT tourney(tourney for losers hahaha)


August 21st, 2005, 12:02 pm
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman

Joined: March 22nd, 2005, 8:42 pm
Posts: 3811
Post 
Right now the Army is meeting its monthly recruiting goals by handing out US citizenship to Phillipinos. That is not working for the reserves. The Army has used lots of pressure and incentives to get people to re-enlist, but the problem with the guard will not be solved. The numbers crunch will peak next year as many, even with forced extensions can finally opt out.

As for the conflict, there is no good way out any longer. It is all about cutting loses or taking responsibility. I doubt Bush will pull out.

_________________
Far and away from the sound and the fury. . .


August 21st, 2005, 1:05 pm
Profile
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: January 6th, 2005, 10:54 am
Posts: 2274
Location: South Quad- Ann Arbor
Post 
Rolando wrote:
Bring the troops home.


Well, there really isn't anything we can do about the troops right now. If we pulled out, there would be chaos I think, and it would be a huge waste of the sacrifices of the people who have served over there.

_________________
"If he isn't the best football player, the best runner, that the Lord has ever made, then the Lord has yet to make one." Wayne Fontes on Barry.
Image


August 21st, 2005, 1:06 pm
Profile WWW
Hall of Fame Player
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2005, 7:03 am
Posts: 7411
Location: Ford Field - 35 yard line / Row 32
Post 
My thoughts are very different I'm sorry to say. Mostly because I've decided to learn from past mistakes.

When Patton was in Berlin he could have driven his troops all the way to Moscow and changed the face of the globe forever. Instead our nation spent over 40 years and countless Gazillions on a cold war that still isn't completely over.

When we nuked Japan to end WWII we shouldn't have spent more countless Zakillions of money rebuilding it so that they can be in a position today to destroy our nation financially if they wanted to. (And they could if you didn't know that).

When we fought the Golf War in the 90's we should have stayed there and taken any and all the oil we wanted - it's called 'spoils of war' and has existed on this planet since the first monkey picked up a stick and hit another one with it. If we'd have stayed it would either be Americanized by now or destroyed - either would be fine by me - and we wouldn't be having this discussion now and the twin towers might still be there.

When will this nation learn that the only way to win a war is to kill the enemy. If you do it right they stay dead if you don't they come back to hurt you. Even frickin' Long John Silver said "dead dogs don't bite". We as a nation could learn from that. We took this country from the Indians so please don't tell me we're not in the business of taking stuff from other people.

I want my car to run - I don't really care what it runs on - I just want it to get me to the store or a Lions game. But as long as it runs on oil (gas) I don't want to pay $2.50 + per gallon either. I want gasoline at a reasonable cost and I will use my vote to elect the government that will get it for me. Period! When we no longer use gas to run our cars then they can have their country back if we choose.

I'm tired of 'protecting' ourselves defensively by sacrificing our rights and freedoms here in this country (searches in airports etc.). I'm ONLY interested in protecting ourselves offensively... by seeking out the nations that would teach their children in school how to kill us and kill them first.

Obviously, I want to do that without the loss of American life but I'm enough of a realist to know that some will have to pay the ultimate price for the safety and freedom of others. Which is one reason why I favor a strong, technically advanced military with first strike, decisive victory capabilities and government leaders willing to use it regardless of what other world leaders choose to do (or not do).


August 21st, 2005, 1:11 pm
Profile WWW
5th Round Pick - Traded
User avatar

Joined: November 15th, 2004, 7:24 am
Posts: 1055
Location: Alaska
Post 
LionFan57 wrote:
My thoughts are very different I'm sorry to say. Mostly because I've decided to learn from past mistakes.

When Patton was in Berlin he could have driven his troops all the way to Moscow and changed the face of the globe forever. Instead our nation spent over 40 years and countless Gazillions on a cold war that still isn't completely over.

When we nuked Japan to end WWII we shouldn't have spent more countless Zakillions of money rebuilding it so that they can be in a position today to destroy our nation financially if they wanted to. (And they could if you didn't know that).

When we fought the Golf War in the 90's we should have stayed there and taken any and all the oil we wanted - it's called 'spoils of war' and has existed on this planet since the first monkey picked up a stick and hit another one with it. If we'd have stayed it would either be Americanized by now or destroyed - either would be fine by me - and we wouldn't be having this discussion now and the twin towers might still be there.

When will this nation learn that the only way to win a war is to kill the enemy. If you do it right they stay dead if you don't they come back to hurt you. Even frickin' Long John Silver said "dead dogs don't bite". We as a nation could learn from that. We took this country from the Indians so please don't tell me we're not in the business of taking stuff from other people.

I want my car to run - I don't really care what it runs on - I just want it to get me to the store or a Lions game. But as long as it runs on oil (gas) I don't want to pay $2.50 + per gallon either. I want gasoline at a reasonable cost and I will use my vote to elect the government that will get it for me. Period! When we no longer use gas to run our cars then they can have their country back if we choose.

I'm tired of 'protecting' ourselves defensively by sacrificing our rights and freedoms here in this country (searches in airports etc.). I'm ONLY interested in protecting ourselves offensively... by seeking out the nations that would teach their children in school how to kill us and kill them first.

Obviously, I want to do that without the loss of American life but I'm enough of a realist to know that some will have to pay the ultimate price for the safety and freedom of others. Which is one reason why I favor a strong, technically advanced military with first strike, decisive victory capabilities and government leaders willing to use it regardless of what other world leaders choose to do (or not do).


Ditto!


August 21st, 2005, 1:18 pm
Profile
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: January 6th, 2005, 10:54 am
Posts: 2274
Location: South Quad- Ann Arbor
Post 
LionFan57 wrote:
My thoughts are very different I'm sorry to say. Mostly because I've decided to learn from past mistakes.

When Patton was in Berlin he could have driven his troops all the way to Moscow and changed the face of the globe forever. Instead our nation spent over 40 years and countless Gazillions on a cold war that still isn't completely over.

When we nuked Japan to end WWII we shouldn't have spent more countless Zakillions of money rebuilding it so that they can be in a position today to destroy our nation financially if they wanted to. (And they could if you didn't know that).

When we fought the Golf War in the 90's we should have stayed there and taken any and all the oil we wanted - it's called 'spoils of war' and has existed on this planet since the first monkey picked up a stick and hit another one with it. If we'd have stayed it would either be Americanized by now or destroyed - either would be fine by me - and we wouldn't be having this discussion now and the twin towers might still be there.

When will this nation learn that the only way to win a war is to kill the enemy. If you do it right they stay dead if you don't they come back to hurt you. Even frickin' Long John Silver said "dead dogs don't bite". We as a nation could learn from that. We took this country from the Indians so please don't tell me we're not in the business of taking stuff from other people.

I want my car to run - I don't really care what it runs on - I just want it to get me to the store or a Lions game. But as long as it runs on oil (gas) I don't want to pay $2.50 + per gallon either. I want gasoline at a reasonable cost and I will use my vote to elect the government that will get it for me. Period! When we no longer use gas to run our cars then they can have their country back if we choose.

I'm tired of 'protecting' ourselves defensively by sacrificing our rights and freedoms here in this country (searches in airports etc.). I'm ONLY interested in protecting ourselves offensively... by seeking out the nations that would teach their children in school how to kill us and kill them first.

Obviously, I want to do that without the loss of American life but I'm enough of a realist to know that some will have to pay the ultimate price for the safety and freedom of others. Which is one reason why I favor a strong, technically advanced military with first strike, decisive victory capabilities and government leaders willing to use it regardless of what other world leaders choose to do (or not do).


:shock:

_________________
"If he isn't the best football player, the best runner, that the Lord has ever made, then the Lord has yet to make one." Wayne Fontes on Barry.
Image


August 21st, 2005, 1:33 pm
Profile WWW
QB Coach

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 8:33 pm
Posts: 3222
Post 
I want cheaper gas too.

And I want the Stock Market to recouperate to what it once was.


August 21st, 2005, 3:47 pm
Profile WWW
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman

Joined: March 22nd, 2005, 8:42 pm
Posts: 3811
Post 
One problem with that analogy is that Saddam was not our enemy. One week of bombing and he was through, while the real threats to US supremacy meanwhile have their hands free.

_________________
Far and away from the sound and the fury. . .


August 21st, 2005, 4:15 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Player
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2005, 7:03 am
Posts: 7411
Location: Ford Field - 35 yard line / Row 32
Post 
Yorick wrote:
One problem with that analogy is that Saddam was not our enemy. One week of bombing and he was through, while the real threats to US supremacy meanwhile have their hands free.


I think you missed the point of my earlier post.

If we'd have wiped him out the first time during the 90's Gulf War (when he was an enemy as you say) then things today would have turned out very different.

If we'd have never left in the first place the US would now be an oil rich OPEC nation. Our gas would be 50 cents a gallon and that would have financed our military costs of taking the country over in the first place.

There would not be a discussion about WMD and where they are, nor would there have been any chance that Saddam would have contributed to extremist groups. He'd have been captured, tried and executed over ten years ago.

What we are doing now is finishing the job we didn't finish then. That's what we as a nation need to do IMO. We need to learn that the half measure never works. Either obliterate, kill and conquer our enemy then reap the spoils of war, OR, don't leave home in the first place. If it's worth taking - it's worth keeping. I do not believe in bleeding for the same ground twice.

Please name one other civilization since the dawn of mankind that conquers it's enemy only to rebuild it at their expense and hand the country back to it's original people. If that worked everyone thru out history would have been doing it. Are we so arrogant and full of ourselves that we believe it would work for us? It hasn't so far, and we've proved it.

A thousand years from now the planets children will be in history class at school laughing at the American foreign policies of the 20th & 21st centuries.

I say keep the troops there to hold the land and give the oil back to us (you and me and the British) who paid for the war in the first place. Sell what's left to our friends in the world at a price that undercuts OPEC driving them out of business. Rebuild the country so it can serve our future needs, but don't give it back, and kill the people who don't like it and resist. (BTW, we're doing this part now except we're going to give it back).

Basically, do what every other conquering nation has ever done.


August 22nd, 2005, 10:01 am
Profile WWW
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: January 6th, 2005, 10:54 am
Posts: 2274
Location: South Quad- Ann Arbor
Post 
Well, there has never been a country like ours. We are a nation of freedoms. Invading a country and taking the spoils kind of goes agaisnt what this counrty was founded on, limited gov., personal freedoms, etc. You say that it doesn't work, conquering an enemy and giving their nation back to them and rebuilding it. The other doesn't work either, IMO, that is, taking the spoils. Britan, Rome, and France prove this. Where are their empires?

_________________
"If he isn't the best football player, the best runner, that the Lord has ever made, then the Lord has yet to make one." Wayne Fontes on Barry.
Image


August 22nd, 2005, 10:20 am
Profile WWW
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman

Joined: March 22nd, 2005, 8:42 pm
Posts: 3811
Post 
I have to decline the invitation to rebut that argument. I am not saying I disagree with everything, but to delve that deeply into history and policy would be too time prohibitive.

_________________
Far and away from the sound and the fury. . .


August 22nd, 2005, 9:44 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Player
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2005, 7:03 am
Posts: 7411
Location: Ford Field - 35 yard line / Row 32
Post 
bsand2053 wrote:
Well, there has never been a country like ours. We are a nation of freedoms. Invading a country and taking the spoils kind of goes agaisnt what this counrty was founded on, limited gov., personal freedoms, etc.


I'm sorry BS2053 but this statement is utterly misguided, uninformed and incorrect.

If history serves me correctly when the pilgrims arrived the American Indians had been living here very happily for well over several thousand years. Shortly after trading $24 worth of blankets and beads for Manhattan Island we decided to slaughter the buffalo in an attempt to kill them all. That worked to the point where we put the survivors into the equivalent of a concentration camps and finally expelled them to reservations.

The last I looked the North American Indians - per capita - are the richest people on the planet earth. Provided they remain residents on their reservations they enjoy huge land grants, timber and mineral rights. Furthermore, gambling casinos are routinely built and provide income in 5 and 6 digits per person per year.

This was designed to make up for our past atrocities to their ancestors.

Look around you... There are many Black Americans whose ancestors where happily living on the Eastern coast of the African continent. Then we decided to invade their villages, kill, rape and capture them; bringing thousands to America (the land of the free) only to make them slaves.

So please - as I said in an earlier post - don't even think of telling me that we as a nation don't plunder others to get what we want. We have, We do, and I'm certain we will again.



bsand2053 wrote:
You say that it doesn't work, conquering an enemy and giving their nation back to them and rebuilding it. The other doesn't work either, IMO, that is, taking the spoils. Britan, Rome, and France prove this. Where are their empires?


Where are their empires? WTF?

Where did you go to school?

You just named three of the top eight most powerful, economically viable, wealthiest, influential and oldest nations and / or cultures that ever existed since Cromagnam man.

I'd say their empires are doing fine. Maybe not as good since they started doing business our way. But still OK.

Thank you.

You just made my point for me.


August 23rd, 2005, 9:25 am
Profile WWW
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: January 6th, 2005, 10:54 am
Posts: 2274
Location: South Quad- Ann Arbor
Post 
I'm not going to post after this, becasue we aren't going to persuade each other, and I don't like to argue unless



LF57 wrote:
So please - as I said in an earlier post - don't even think of telling me that we as a nation don't plunder others to get what we want. We have, We do, and I'm certain we will again.


So because we made mistakes in the past, allows us to do it again? You are right that our history has huge blacks marks, slavery, Expanionism, Imperialism, etc. But that is no reason to do it all over again.

LF57 wrote:
The last I looked the North American Indians - per capita - are the richest people on the planet earth. Provided they remain residents on their reservations they enjoy huge land grants, timber and mineral rights. Furthermore, gambling casinos are routinely built and provide income in 5 and 6 digits per person per year.


Native Americans are the poorest minority in the country. There poverty rate is 25.9%. The national poverty rate is 11.3%. They are still feeling the effects of Expanionism, and now the Bureau of Indiana Affairs is doing a good job of being a normal inefficent government bureaucracy. They may get a lot of cash from casinos, but it must not get distubted. Maybe CO2 can help out here.

LF57 wrote:
Where are their empires? WTF?

Where did you go to school?

You just named three of the top eight most powerful, economically viable, wealthiest, influential and oldest nations and / or cultures that ever existed since Cromagnam man.


Well, Rome is just Italty now, Britian lost America, India, Canada(not officaly), France lost their empire as well. Yes, they are economically strong, but thats not the point. At least, it is not mine. :lol:


LF57 wrote:
Rebuild the country so it can serve our future needs, but don't give it back, and kill the people who don't like it and resist.


Why wouldn't they hate us if we were in Iraq to take it over and use it for ourselves? That would give them a real reason to hate us, which they don't need.

_________________
"If he isn't the best football player, the best runner, that the Lord has ever made, then the Lord has yet to make one." Wayne Fontes on Barry.
Image


August 23rd, 2005, 9:59 am
Profile WWW
QB Coach

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 8:33 pm
Posts: 3222
Post 
I hate history and politics.


August 23rd, 2005, 2:44 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.