U.S. lawmakers call for more American troops in Iraq

[BigBadBrian]

U.S. lawmakers call for more American troops in Iraq
Sun Aug 14, 2005 3:28 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two top U.S. lawmakers on Sunday called for more American troops to be sent to Iraq, but the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said that was "very unlikely."

Sens. Joseph Biden and John McCain said there were not enough U.S. forces to fend off insurgent attacks and not enough Iraqi forces are trained to take over from the 138,000 U.S. soldiers there.

Biden, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking Democrat, said fewer than 3,000 Iraqis are fully trained to take over from their American counterparts.

"We have another probably 20 to 30 battalions out there that, with embedded U.S. military, are able to do a serious, positive job. After that, it falls off the cliff," the Delaware senator said on NBC'S "Meet the Press."

A recent U.S. military report put the number of Iraqi security forces at 171,300.

McCain, a top Republican on the Senate Armed Services committee, said if more American troops are not sent, Iraqis should continue to supplement but not replace U.S. forces.

"The day that I can land at the airport in Baghdad and ride in an unarmed car down the highway to the green zone is the day that I'll start considering withdrawals from Iraq," the Arizona Republican told "Fox News Sunday."

Earlier this week, President Bush said there was progress in training Iraq's troops and that "more and more" of them are able to fight insurgents.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar said while there were not enough U.S. troops to keep out insurgents, sending more probably would not happen.

"It's very unlikely that we're going to send more troops to Iraq. We are going to have to train the Iraqis faster and harder," Lugar, an Indiana Republican, said on CNN's "Late Edition."

The senators' comments followed a report by The Washington Post on Sunday that said the Bush administration is lowering its expectations of what it can achieve in Iraq.

The report quoted an unnamed senior official, who said U.S. officials do not expect Iraq to develop a model democracy, a self-sustained oil industry or a stable society.

"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," the Post report quoted the official as saying.

Florida Democrat Sen. Bill Nelson, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the administration lowered its expectations because "we were not prepared for the occupation."

Nelson, who agreed more U.S. troops are needed, told CNN Congress should "make sure the administration comes forth with specific goals and benchmarks and timetables as to what can be expected in the way of progress of allowing the Iraqi army to be able to provide their own security."

The number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion had reached 1,852 as of Sunday.

Link (http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-08-14T192817Z_01_MOL470069_RTRIDST_0_USREPORT-IRAQ-USA-FORCES-DC.XML)

[FORD]

I wonder if Biden's son will volunteer to go :rolleyes:

[Warham]

Don't you agree with Democrat-favorite McCain, FORD?

[Phil theStalker]

Warhan and BBB, you guys are still sooooooooooo fakking lame..

Tit's as obvious as da nose on yer faces..

uh uh uh u hu hu hu hu h

Why do you bother?


:spank:

[Phil theStalker]

Warhan and BBB, you guys are still sooooooooooo fakking lame..

Tit's as obvious as da nose on yer faces..

uh uh uh u hu hu hu hu h

Why do you bother?


:spank:

[Phil theStalker]

Warhan and BBB, you guys are still sooooooooooo fakking lame..

Tit's as obvious as da nose on yer faces..

uh uh uh u hu hu hu hu h

Why do you bother?


:spank:

[Phil theStalker]

Warhan and BBB, you guys are still sooooooooooo fakking lame..

Tit's as obvious as da nose on yer faces..

uh uh uh u hu hu hu hu h

Why do you bother?


:spank:

[Phil theStalker]

Warhan and BBB, you guys are still sooooooooooo fakking lame..

Tit's as obvious as da nose on yer faces..

uh uh uh u hu hu hu hu h

Why do you bother?


:spank:

[Phil theStalker]

Warhan and BBB, you guys are still sooooooooooo fakking lame..

Tit's as obvious as da nose on yer faces..

uh uh uh u hu hu hu hu h

Why do you bother?


:spank:

[Phil theStalker]

WOT'S
GOING ON
HERE,
BAYBEE!?


:spank:

[superdave]

Phil--are you capable of talking normal, and not sounding like Emo Phillips??

[Phil theStalker]

I NEVA ATTACHED ANY IMAGE..

WOT DA FAKK'S GOING ON HERE?

HUH



:spank:

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by superdave
Phil--are you capable of talking normal, and not sounding like Emo Phillips??
Emo?

Yoo know aboot Emo?

We try t2o keep him locked up in da basement at hitchWORLD1969..

In a cage..


=PtS=
:spank:

[Keef]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
U.S. lawmakers call for more American troops in Iraq
Sun Aug 14, 2005 3:28 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two top U.S. lawmakers on Sunday called for more American troops to be sent to Iraq, but the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said that was "very unlikely."

Sens. Joseph Biden and John McCain said there were not enough U.S. forces to fend off insurgent attacks and not enough Iraqi forces are trained to take over from the 138,000 U.S. soldiers there.

Biden, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking Democrat, said fewer than 3,000 Iraqis are fully trained to take over from their American counterparts.

"We have another probably 20 to 30 battalions out there that, with embedded U.S. military, are able to do a serious, positive job. After that, it falls off the cliff," the Delaware senator said on NBC'S "Meet the Press."

A recent U.S. military report put the number of Iraqi security forces at 171,300.

McCain, a top Republican on the Senate Armed Services committee, said if more American troops are not sent, Iraqis should continue to supplement but not replace U.S. forces.

"The day that I can land at the airport in Baghdad and ride in an unarmed car down the highway to the green zone is the day that I'll start considering withdrawals from Iraq," the Arizona Republican told "Fox News Sunday."

Earlier this week, President Bush said there was progress in training Iraq's troops and that "more and more" of them are able to fight insurgents.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar said while there were not enough U.S. troops to keep out insurgents, sending more probably would not happen.

"It's very unlikely that we're going to send more troops to Iraq. We are going to have to train the Iraqis faster and harder," Lugar, an Indiana Republican, said on CNN's "Late Edition."

The senators' comments followed a report by The Washington Post on Sunday that said the Bush administration is lowering its expectations of what it can achieve in Iraq.

The report quoted an unnamed senior official, who said U.S. officials do not expect Iraq to develop a model democracy, a self-sustained oil industry or a stable society.

"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," the Post report quoted the official as saying.

Florida Democrat Sen. Bill Nelson, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the administration lowered its expectations because "we were not prepared for the occupation."

Nelson, who agreed more U.S. troops are needed, told CNN Congress should "make sure the administration comes forth with specific goals and benchmarks and timetables as to what can be expected in the way of progress of allowing the Iraqi army to be able to provide their own security."

The number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion had reached 1,852 as of Sunday.

Link (http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-08-14T192817Z_01_MOL470069_RTRIDST_0_USREPORT-IRAQ-USA-FORCES-DC.XML)

This is not a left or right argument anymore. Atleast it should not be.

It's about a cesspool of thugs that have taken CONTROL of our country.

I wish more people would understand this. Stop fighting each other, and start fighting the real problem.

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by superdave
Phil--are you capable of talking normal, and not sounding like Emo Phillips??
I believe the people of the world deserve what you ask for. I normally
pass on those lenghty, lesson-filled, spell check perfect posts I read
here on a daily basis, most of them from flappo or some other "normal" member.

TIME HAS COME TODAY.

I usually just ignore these call outs. Of course, all at the risk of losing
life, limb, and liberty. But when superdave posts to you a call out
and asks you if you're capable of talking "normal," you answer it out
of pride. And now I'm answering it f4or, oops, for all of you.

Not because I fear the wrath of the spirit of message board Internet
fraternity, but just because I really WANT to.

WHAT IS NORMAL?

When do you change your underwear, daily, when they seem like they
need changing, when they're rotting in caked splooge? What IS normal? huh

Maybe we can answer that by attacking the problem in reverse.
What is "abnormal?"

The definition of the word abnormal is simple enough: deviating from
the norm. However, applying this to "talking" poses a most complex
problem: what IS normal? Whose norm? For what age? For what
culture? For what wife-swapping club?

Some would simply classify what is "good" as normal and what
is "bad" as abnormal, but this is a vague and narrow definition and
brings up many of the same questions f4or, oops, for the definition
of "good" as does the definition f4or, oops, "normal."

A very simple idea that can be used to classify abnormal behavior
is "happiness." Basically, if a person is content with their life, then
they are of no concern to society. However, if a person's thoughts or
behaviors are causing them "unhappiness," then they can be
considered abnormal.

There are many things people do that others would find strange.
The various piercings many people are doing to themselves seems
bizarre to those who don't.

Modern scans have pinpointed circuits in the monkey brain that could
be precursors of those in humans for talking and language.
Talking derives from a gestural communication system used by proto-humans,
monkeys and homo sapiens. What does the middle finger mean? huh

What does the middle finger being given by a monkey mean?
While monkeys lack the vocal equipment needed to articulate
speech, they do have the brain circuits needed for simple
communication.

Monkey vocalizations are limited to calls and screeches, but they are
able to communicate via facial gestures such as tooth chatttering and
lip smacking.

Monkeys get depressed, too. I was just reading a report on new
findings about patterns of depression in monkeys. Scientists hope
that studying them could lead to better treatments for depression in
people.

So talking normal is just monkey business. I regret that I cannot be
of more assistance in this matter. I would also like to apologize f4or,
oops, for the delay in replying and I trust that this has clarified the
points you have raised, however, if you wish to discuss any points I
have not clarified, or need any further information, I will look forward
to hearing from you. Should you have any queries, please do not
hesitate to post to me again.


=PtS=
:spank:


THE MIRACLE OF TALKING
When Chimps Attack
COUPLE OF TALKING CHIMPS

[Phil theStalker]

EMO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
O
O
OOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Don't you agree with Democrat-favorite McCain, FORD?

McCain sold out after 2000 and Biden sold out long before that. They're both BCE puppets now.

And no we don't need more troops in Iraq, we need LESS. Like none at all. There was no valid reason to invade Iraq in the first place, and there's no point in continuing the occupation when we obviously aren't wanted.

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by FORD
McCain sold out after 2000 and Biden sold out long before that. They're both BCE puppets now.

And no we don't need more troops in Iraq, we need LESS. Like none at all. There was no valid reason to invade Iraq in the first place, and there's no point in continuing the occupation when we obviously aren't wanted. Ahhh...pronouns!

FORD,

But wot "we" R U talkin' aboot, brotha? huh

Yoo know "they" need t2o keep PERMANENT military bases in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Afganistan, and Iraq now, BAYBEE..

Tit'll take a civil war in da U.S. t2o collapse da military operation in da whole Middle East..


:spank: