What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
113 Comments
- CardinalFang, on 10/12/2007, -3/+48@uhhhh
Do what is necessary? Okay, so when do you ship out? - Mewchu11, on 10/12/2007, -6/+35@uhhhh
I dugg down your comment. I did what was necessary. - adexsi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24Draft the young Republicans, the neocons, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and whoever else who believes so much in this war. We need to have a litmus test in this country. If you believe so much in the war, go over there yourself and fight it. Use your own money and life for it. Don't use the public or public funds! Idiots want to support the war but not go over there. You want a cure for Alzheimers, Parkinsons, and cancer but no stem cell research. Republicans have done a major disservice to this country. I'm ashamed to have been a Republican at one point and even more ashamed to be an American today. Wake up America!
- MarkCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26So if Bush wants 20,000-40,000 more troops, and can only get 9,000, does he say "fine" or does he order the draft to get his surge?
- Civil44, on 10/12/2007, -19/+36war is never necessary
- WaldoX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20this means bush has to suit up and join the fighting forces in iraq
- hobgobbler, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19He'll probably order his generals to pray to Jesus for more troops. Then fire them when it doesn't work.
- deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Well, they were called the "Republican" guard.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Indeed. We have a plan to give citizenship for military service, and those blokes would fit right in with the rest of the Republicans in America.
- S1L3NTC, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Dubya should conscript his daughters before sending anymore children to fight his foolhardy battles.
I hope someone in the new democratic congress will be bold enough to impeach him for war crimes and repeatedly lying to the world (not just the American public).
One of my favorite Bushisms:
"...How would you define tribal sovereignty?"
"...Well... Tribal sovereignty is exactly that. It's when a tribe is sovereign..." - drjekelmrhyde, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I think they only mean 9000 ready troops the other 150k+stationed elsewhere cant really go anywhere especially in Japan and South Korea with the NK threat and still need our other countless hundreds of thousands here in the states here in case something bad happens here
- dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Someone mentioned a military draft, perhaps jokingly. Well look what i recieved in my email. Why i recieve emails asking me to join the US army I've no clue seeing as how I live on the other side of the planet. But anyway ..
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/2418/militarydraftrq4.png - ksponge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11If they came to pull me from my house for a draft, we'd be bringing the war to my front lawn real fast. I'm too old to be drafted at this point, but I die on my own terms and not for the united corporations.
- MadN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I keep hearing how "we can't leave Iraq" and "leaving Iraq would cause terrorism and chaos".
We cannot stay in Iraq forever, and Iraq will never be stable as long as we are there.
Iraq will never be a stable country again, only Sadam's brutality held that country in together.
Bush caused the coming complete breakdown in the Mideast through lies and misdirection.
This is why Bush should be impeached.
The impeachment trial must find the real reasons we are in Iraq; Bush changes the "decided" reason we are in Iraq too often.
We must get his answers under oath, where he cannot change them next week. - smoothmedia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Well at least Bush "realizes that this is important"......good god.
- thexfile, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8It's an unpopular war so no one signs up. "go figure"
- jthoward007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6They start activating inactive reservists until they get to the number they need. These are individuals (officers and enlisted) that served out their four year active duty obligation, but owe four more years as inactive reservists (thus making it an 8 year obligation to enlist/receive commission in the US Military)
Of course, it isn't an instant solution since it takes a while to get them to report for duty, trained and equipped.
It's no secret that our active duty and even our active reserve personnel are stretched "thin". What does that leave? I think inactive reservists are going to start getting phone calls soon. - numike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Beyond the Euphrates began for us the land of mirage and danger, the sands where one helplessly sank, and the roads which ended in nothing. The slightest reversal would have resulted in a jolt to our prestige giving rise to all kinds of catastrophe; the problem was not only to conquer but to conquer again and again, perpetually; our forces would be drained off in the attempt."
Emperor Hadrian AD 117-138 - diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Please don't equate, thinking that G.W. has screwed-up royally, with being Anti-American.
- P5ycHo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Tell me, when is the 'JOB' done? By the way, what exactly IS the 'JOB'?
- TGMD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5We have more than 9,000 available soldiers, they just need to be mobilized. The problem is that it's political suicide to mobilize the nation's military at this point (that includes calling up all the national guard and the reserves and to redeploy forces in Europe).
The problem is that we need more soldiers in Iraq, Bush got us into this quagmire and now there's no easy way out of it. We can't simply leave, if we do it would leave to a regional choas... perhapes even a larger war... maybe even wwIII... (hey I didn't vote for him you people did)
I imagine I'm going to get deployed soon. - pabster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Nah, it is just the nature of the beast.
The 'net is full of liberals too young and foolhearty to have made the switch to conservative, yet.
Digg is full of twenty-somethings with the typical liberal mentalities. - Vincep1974, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4These people are automatically disposed to oppose any decision he makes.
With Afghanistan it was "Why didn't you know. Why didnt you stop it"
With Iraq it was "But where was your proof, what did they do to us"
With withdrawel of the ABM it was "OMG YOU'RE BEING UNILATERAL"
With Korea it is "OMG YOU'RE BEING MULTILATERAL"
With Iran it's "THEY DONT HAVE WMD, you cant attack them"
With Korea it's "THEY HAVE WMD, you can't attack them"
if it wasn't so pathological it would be funny. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What is he up to now on the list of excuses?
#1 We know they got WMDs
#2 top themfrom making those WMDs that they don't have
#3 Liberate Iraq from Hussein
#4 Protect its natural resources (ie. we want the oil)
And I'm sure we're several lame excuses along from those four by now as well! - oskite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5That's the real story here. Quite a breakthrough, actually.
- MrPig, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6A draft would never get passed. Troops can not be trained fast enough to handle our modern equipment so a draft would be a complete failure. Any troops they sent into Iraq from the draft would not know how to operate some of the GPS and other "new" equipment unless they were kept for extensive training (about a year of training if I remember correctly). No congressman would pass it anyway, it would be death to his political career.
Transcript:
REPORTER: The president is expected to give his speech on a new way forward in Iraq next week. CBS’s David Martin has learned military commanders told the President they could execute a ‘troop surge’ of 9,000 soldiers and Marines into Iraq, with another 10,000 on alert in Kuwait and the U.S. Two army brigades — about 7,500 troops — would go into Baghdad in an effort to control the violence, clearing neighborhoods and staying long enough for reconstruction projects to take effect. 1,500 Marines would go to the western province of al-Anbar, heartland of the Sunni insurgency. This, even though the Commandant of the Marine Corps was quoted as saying he did not see a need for more battalions. But aides say the President still hasn’t decided for sure on a plan.
TONY SNOW (CLIP): The President understands this is important and needs to be done right.
ANCHOR: And details for the President’s proposal on Iraq are still being hammered out, but Pentagon officials are sure the President will order more troops to Iraq. - Comatose51, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@somebitches2: One would think after a decade of war and 60,000 dead, we would have learned either: how to fight insurgencies or how not to get stuck fighting one if we don't know the first. One would think.... Oh right, none of our top level civilian leaders ever actually fought in Vietnam. No instead, some group of jackasses paid a bunch of veterans to call the one candidate who actually set foot in Vietnam and was awarded a medal for bravery a coward. Thanks Fast Boat Veterans for Truth! You help put people of my generation through the same ***** you went through. You happy now?!
In any case, I suppose we have to make a decision at this point. Either we increase troop levels in Iraq to be more effective and overhaul the way we do thing or we leave. The status quo is not sustainable. - jthoward007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Agreed. However, that isn't the entire picture.
How many are in the Navy or Air Force? Approximately 700-800k I believe. Navy Corpsmen serve with Marine Corps units, but other than that, don't count them as "available" for service in country. As for the Air Force, I saw a handful while in Iraq (usually a para-rescue or combat controller). Plenty of them sitting in airbases supporting the various aircraft, but again, count them out for any actual action in country.
So that in fact leaves less than 700k Army/Marine Corps active duty personnel available for ground action in Iraq. Start subtracting the number of personnel fulfilling the US obligations abroad (Europe, Japan, Afghanistan, etc), subtract the number in training commands, and others I can't think of that are not "available" and the number shrinks even more.
If 150,000 are required to be in Iraq, then assuming there is a straight rotation (there isn't..it's staggered, but for example's sake), 300,000 are required to take turns deploying. That's a huge chunk of personnel and that's why so many active reservists are pretty much active duty. Also why the national guard has been coughed up for cannon fodder. Asking for a sustained deployment of 150k is asking quite a lot. - chicagobiker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7What, all six of them?
We've been there 3 years and can't even get 10,000 Iraqis to join their own army.
There were no WMD's. There was no republican guard. Just a bunch of rabble in 1980 Toyota pickups with M249's the United States gave them to shoot Iranians 20 years ago mounted to the roof.
Any Iraqis with the means to leave did so when the US bombs started falling and they're not coming back. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This whole surge business is nothing but tripe anyway. You could send another 40,000 troops to Baghdad and it might make a difference in the short term but how long can we leave them there? Ten minutes after we're gone the sectarian strife is going to return, so what have we really gained? The Iraqi police and military are part of the problem, so training more will only yield more highly trained militia fighters.
This is Bush posturing to blame the Democrats for losing the war. We wanted to send more troops, we could've done the job but those darn Defeatocrats wouldn't let us. As pathetic as it is transparent.
No more troops, no more money. You had four years to get the job done and YOU BLEW IT. More money and more troops aren't going to fix your screw up and you're never going to be able to push the blame off on someone else. Iraq was one of the biggest screw ups in American history and the Republicans OWN IT! - smitting, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Considering we're at roughly 115k troops, down from around 150k troops, it's hard to imagine that we only have 9,000 troops available. I can certainly understand why we can't restore troop strength back to 150k troops with a 2nd carrier group heading to Iran this week.
- donkeydrop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's amazing how no-one ever bothers to check the original source. About the only thing in common with what CBS actually reported is the number "9000". You might as well have written "Military tells Bush 9000 Martians have landed on the White House Lawn"
- hobgobbler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I want Cheney impeached first. Dubya second.
- iNaya, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6He could always recruit Saddams old soldiers into the US army...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"The agency is not gearing up for a draft, an agency official said Thursday. The test itself would not likely occur until 2009."
"Planning for the Selective Service exercise, called the Area Office Mobilization Prototype Exercise, is slated to begin in June or July of next year for a 2009 test. Campbell said budget cuts could force the agency to cancel the test, which he said should take place every three years but hasn't because of funding constraints."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/22/draft.machines.ap/index.html
There's not going to be any draft. Congress doesn't want one, the White House doesn't want one, the military doesn't want one, and the people wouldn't stand for one. They can't even get the funding to pretend to have a draft when they're supposed to. - Psalms, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I am always amazed at the internet; 90% Anti-American, it seems like. Is it just me, or am I about to place in the 'Most Dugg-Down Comments' category? I could care less, but I think it'd be worth a shot, here goes; "I like the Bush Administration!" (Here come the angry replies, perhaps?)
- diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Surge or not, there is nothing we can do to stop what has already started over there. We may be able to bring the level of violence down for awhile. But, it won't deter the battle for control of Iraq. We're not going to like the outcome, either. It's all been a deceitful, stupid, waste.
- smitting, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Can't do much about your existing kids, but I have several friends now that got snipped, not because they don't want children, but because they find it selfish to bring a kid into this world... they can't find any good arguments for existing from the child's point of view.
Me, I'm going to have kids and keep the fingers crossed that the world keeps its ***** together. - 0crabby0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"The Pentagon has approximately 23,000 military and civilian employees and about 3,000 non-defense support personnel."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon
There's your surge... - evilish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I had a few questions pop into my mind after reading that article,
How exactly are the extra 9,000 troops going to stop the Sunni Insurgents and Shiite Death Squads?
How is the new plan going to eliminate the hidden weapons caches and the armed combatants, who wear civilian clothes, army and police uniforms everyday?
I have a feeling that before someone wakes up and comes up with a plan that works. There will be many more dead American soldiers. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"It worked in Australia.."
WTF!!! No it didn't because it wasn't EVER tried in Oz (especially with people serving life). - an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Rangel only proposed the draft as a way of pressuring Neocons. Kind of a dickish grandstanding move for sure though.
- Psalms, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Thanks for the real statistics there, nixfu. Some parts of the media have a way of not mentioning things that point out a fundamental flaw in their arguments; stuff like this. Much appreciated.
- oskite, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I want him to be inpeached by just the house, so he stays in office. I shudder to think what Cheney would do with the presidency.
- goofporter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I won't digg you down, I'll just ask "what, specifically, do you like about the present administration?"
I don't feel any richer or safer and I certainly don't feel more free. - whiteninja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Psalms
It's pretty obviously why you like the Bush administration.... your user name is Psalms. By the way, what is more "un-American" than sending thousands of our country's children to have their arms and legs blown off, and if they don't, they can watch it happen to all their friends.... sounds like we're setting up the future generations with a nice solid base for their mental health. - Soldan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I dont think any number of troops is really going to help at this point and more would just cause alot more problem....can troops on the ground really tell friend from foe...and how many people are selling our neighbors to be spared
the correct course is to acknowledge fault and enlist the UN...and empower them so it can actually function...
Iraqi was a disaster from its very begining... tyrants have been the only ones that have been able to keep the country together....
the use of force or threat of force is terrorism......iraqis smile and wave and say nice things to the cameras to avoid getting listed as a insurgent and shot I am sure... I am sure if we had a foreign foce in the US...I would do the same while at the same time...sharpening my knives behind my back.. - crzdmn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@MrPig
Being fresh out, I can tell you that it only takes a total of 9 months to train a new soldier, from boot camp to MOS. We were trained on all the new equipment during boot camp 4 years ago when I went. And that was 4 years ago, also, a monkey could use the US equipment, we keep it as simple as possible for this specific reason. - twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What the troops will accomplish (providing they do only use 9,000) is that they will be deployed IN Baghdad. 9,000 in Iraq doesn't sound like much, but dump that many into Baghdad and you've increased your ability to control a strategic area where most of the insurgent (read external agitators) are operating. Outside of Baghdad/Tikrit (SH's home turf) the Shia are more than capable of controlling the Sunni element who are trying to regain control. But in Baghdad we just don't have enough presence to maintain control and train the Iraqi forces to the extent we need to train them. They aren't ready to run things on their own, yet. An extra "surge" of US troops will be able to pick up the slack and help accelerate their learning curve.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 114 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 