increase in troop numbers

[morganist]

what do you think of this. do you think the army needs more troops or that it is an unnecessary cost.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8160110.stm

not being american i have no view. i am interested in yours though.

 

[peilthetraveler]

I think that is soooo funny. All those suckers that voted for Obama thought he was going to pull the troops and they are adding more!

 

[trefoil]

The idea is relief, for the soldiers currently out there. One of the things Bush did was to initiate the entirely unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation without thinking about the fact that once you do, it's yours. And so we had unheard of practices like forced re-enlistment. Note that Gates was opposed to this stupidity while serving under Bush. Note as well that Obama was smart enough to keep him.
Stuff like forced re-enlistment make me angry just thinking about our last President.

 

[morganist]

Quote from trefoil:

The idea is relief, for the soldiers currently out there. One of the things Bush did was to initiate the entirely unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation without thinking about the fact that once you do, it's yours. And so we had unheard of practices like forced re-enlistment. Note that Gates was opposed to this stupidity while serving under Bush. Note as well that Obama was smart enough to keep him.
Stuff like forced re-enlistment make me angry just thinking about our last President.

when did they have forced re enlistment.

sorry i did not see the link on your post. you are correct.

at least it is better than conscription. that will happen soon.

 

[Illum]

Gates has been trying to cut military spending, Congress is so corrupt they cant stop the spending spree. More soldiers are needed and the cost pales in comparison to all the defense companies running around in Washington. But yes the wars need to end, we aren't going to accomplish anything in the end. The middle east will actually still be there, so it's a losing proposition.

Economically? 22k soldiers is a drop in the bucket right now all things considered. American opinion or foreign, lets not kid ourselves. They are spending hundreds of millions on field mice and wild horses in our Congress, I shit you not.

Quote from morganist:

when did they have forced re enlistment.

Anytime of war, you serve till they tell you.

 

[morganist]

Quote from Illum:

Gates has been trying to cut military spending, Congress is so corrupt they cant stop the spending spree. More soldiers are needed and the cost pales in comparison to all the defense companies running around in Washington. But yes the wars need to end, we aren't going to accomplish anything in the end. The middle east will actually still be there, so it's a losing proposition.

Economically? 22k soldiers is a drop in the bucket right now all things considered. American opinion or foreign, lets not kid ourselves. They are spending hundreds of millions on field mice and wild horses in our Congress, I shit you not.




Anytime of war, you serve till they tell you.

do you think that wars a partly started or extended because politicians with stakes in arms companies make money from it and also because merchant war bankers make money from lending governments money for the costs?

 

[Illum]

Quote from morganist:

do you think that wars a partly started or extended because politicians with stakes in arms companies make money from it and also because merchant war bankers make money from lending governments money for the costs?

I wouldn't go that far down the conspiracy path, but conditions are set. Of all the reasons for WWI, one of the strongest was an arms race with companies profiting out the wahzoo.

 

[trefoil]

Quote from Illum:



Anytime of war, you serve till they tell you.

Technically true, but the order during Iraq covered far more both than ever before (stop-loss was put in place after Vietnam, so it's relatively recent) and certainly more than would have been needed had Rumsfeld sized the task ahead properly when the Iraq invasion was being planned.
Basically, anyone who tried to introduce reality into the planning and called for the kind of force that would have been needed to truly get it done well was shuffled off. The widespread use of stop-loss was the result.

 

[Mercor]

Quote from trefoil:

The idea is relief, for the soldiers currently out there. One of the things Bush did was to initiate the entirely unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation without thinking about the fact that once you do, it's yours. And so we had unheard of practices like forced re-enlistment. Note that Gates was opposed to this stupidity while serving under Bush. Note as well that Obama was smart enough to keep him.
Stuff like forced re-enlistment make me angry just thinking about our last President.

Many in the military see this relief as placing more risk on the troops.
Occupied societies run smoothly when the civilians get to know the ground troops and the troops understand the customs of the community they occupy. By removing troops from the field all those local connections and trust are lost.
Again the tactics of Bush were keen. He understood this relationship. Obama is dense. As a community organizer he should understand about becoming part of a community.

 

[Scataphagos]

Quote from morganist:

do you think that wars a partly started or extended because politicians with stakes in arms companies make money from it and also because merchant war bankers make money from lending governments money for the costs?

Another reason for war-ing is that the populace likes to be "protected" from something... even if it's made up. That, plus "you'll be better off financially if you vote for me" are the two best campaign promises for election.

It doesn't hurt that deficit spending on war actions is rarely challenged. After all, we WANT to be protected. And deficit spending juices the GDP to make politicos look good.

All a scam, of course.