Bush can go **** himself.
2007-03-10 15:27:29
·
answer #1
·
answered by NONAME 1
·
1⤊
2⤋
Most polls show the Army votes 2/3 republican. If you go back to the 2000 elections Gore appealed to the courts to throw out all the military ballots mailed in from overseas (to Dade county Florida). He did this because his campaign knew that military votes majority conservative.
The APO (Army Post Office) did not use a date time stamp on overseas mail. According to Florida state law all mail in ballots that do not have a date time stamp are invalidated as it cannot be proven when they were mailed. Because of this the Army now uses DT stamps on overseas mail. Over 5,000 votes were thrown out at that time.
P.S. There have been 3 brigades to a division since 1919. About 15,000 total personnel and they all deploy not just the infantry.
2007-03-10 17:07:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by Pooky Bear the Sensitive 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
These won't be fighting troops, but troops used to train other troops such as the Afgans and Iraqis.
This is not surprising in light of the new military commanders, the addition of requested troops in Afganistan that the rest of NATO wouldn't supply and the Democrats and Republican Congress members wanting to leave Iraq in the Fall of 2008.
2007-03-10 18:30:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by gregory_dittman 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
THey focused to much on trying to appease people with smaller numbers & trying to win over people that they didnt allow the military to properly plan. If you let the military focus on its job & then world about the PR everyone would be happier & better off. Still only about 1/3 of the forces there are actually considered combat & thus facing patrols & ambushes. I am not trying to say that the other 2/3s arent at risk even on bases but saying that for the most part when it comes to raids, patrols, security of convoys, and even convoys combat troops are the vast a majority of those at risk on a daily basis. I have friends still in the military & a brother who just volunteered to go 3 months ahead of his schedule deployment. Before you start to judge remember that its a volunteer military & you know darn well the risk. Also remember to not tie someones hands if you want success. You dont hear about Police calling a gang or suspected drug house & tell them when where & how their coming do you? Nope & you shouldnt hear that from the military. We sat outside Falija for 2 months waiting to go in to save "civilians" which I am all for but when the bad guys use them as cover & dress like them & hide in the crowds its just adding to the trouble later allowing them to prepare which they did. You can't tie the hands of the military. You cant cut the funding especially for politics & not have even the idea arger & upset those in the military & be seen as bad. How about we let the military be the military like in World war 2 & worry about the PR later. We bombed every square mile in Europe & no one complainted & we dropped nukes on Japan & japan is one of our biggest allies now & again noone complainted. We expect over night results & if we dont get it right way its a disaster. 80 or so percent of Iraq is fine its just Badgag & its surrounding area which has always been a hot bed. Sorry but its not that bad & would get better if we would stop micromanaging the military & rules of engagement that completely hinders the military. Again where are the advanced warnings on drug raids from police???????
2007-03-10 15:39:42
·
answer #4
·
answered by bpeter3196 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
heres the real deal
a brigade has around 5000 total soldiers
divisions are usally 5 or 6 brigades.....25,000 troops give or take.
out of 25000 troops only about 7000 of those are combat soldiers, so when you hear were beefing up the numbers by 21000, the truth is we are really just sending 7000 troops to help the boys on the ground. thus the problem with more troops......good smokescreen for the american public though
mike b.....check the divisions let me know who has 3 brigades..im at fort campbell and we have more than 3...but im sure you know more than me, and all soldiers go to iraq, only some set foot in it.
2007-03-10 16:33:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
With a 3 to 1 ratio of soldiers that are republican over Democrat, Maybe the left can step up and balance out the miltary, but the odds are short on that.
2007-03-10 15:29:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by garyb1616 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
Bush andrepublicans are trying to create a smoke screen. By asking for 8200 more, theyre hoping the origianl 21000 will be seen as a fair compromise.
2007-03-10 15:28:25
·
answer #7
·
answered by writersbIock2006 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
The largest percentage of the American military is Republican. But don't let facts interfere with your trolling.
2007-03-13 03:14:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes bush is an aggresive commander and is unstoppable because in the nex year and a half he's in office we cant help but watch and stare as he throws in troops after troops and spends billions of dollars, we are in trillions of dollars of debt and I sure don't think it is fair to the future president to have to deal with such things.
2007-03-10 15:38:59
·
answer #9
·
answered by The Chairman Of Jazzy Films 3
·
0⤊
4⤋
yes and all 8,200 should say NO..... this is an illegal war. this ****head in office has lied over and over again to the american people... Maybe this is his theory of genocide on the american people. I think he should go since he's never experienced war first hand... oh yeah and send his daughters too. Let him feel the "real" pain like we do...................IDIOT
2007-03-10 22:43:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by Chery 5
·
0⤊
3⤋
i would not be complaining the more men we have there the less ur brother has to do. go bush and ur brother
2007-03-10 17:01:49
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋