52,000

Bender Bending Rodriguez said:
Like I said, combat troops applies to direct combat MOS's. These are groups that do not allow women to join, namely tanks, arty, and infantry. All I did was combat operations (well patrols and escorting anyways) and I was not counted as a combat troop, because I was assigned to the MP's.
Click to expand...

so its just words....and the troops still there can and will engage in the same activities
 
Yurt said:
so its just words....and the troops still there can and will engage in the same activities
Click to expand...

Combat operations are over.

Someone you knew told you something like "oh, that's not what really happens," so now you're an "expert", and anyone who doesn't believe they're over is a moron or delusional.

You're a perfect example of the old adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

You'll come back w/ some lame insult, but you know I'm right.
 
Yurt said:
so its just words....and the troops still there can and will engage in the same activities
Click to expand...
Uhhh, I can't say THAT with any certainty. They're going to stop assaults into certain areas but I'm going to bet patrols and escort missions will continue. Things have changed a lot since I've been there though, so I don't know.
 
Bender Bending Rodriguez said:
Uhhh, I can't say THAT with any certainty. They're going to stop assaults into certain areas but I'm going to bet patrols and escort missions will continue. Things have changed a lot since I've been there though, so I don't know.
Click to expand...
They won't be "assaults", they will be "training missions" led by "military advisers". The fact that most missions will take place without any Iraqi forces around to learn from our advice is beside the point.

We've seen it all before. Funny how the anti-war crowd is so easily taken in when they like the CinC. They accept the idea of "non-combat troops" instead of the combat troops because of who is saying it. If Bush had pulled out "combat troops" while leaving 52,000 military personnel in country, the left would be all over it like stink on shit. But Bammy is a paragon of truth, so combat is over. (Yea, right.)
 
Good Luck said:
They won't be "assaults", they will be "training missions" led by "military advisers". The fact that most missions will take place without any Iraqi forces around to learn from our advice is beside the point.

We've seen it all before. Funny how the anti-war crowd is so easily taken in when they like the CinC. They accept the idea of "non-combat troops" instead of the combat troops because of who is saying it. If Bush had pulled out "combat troops" while leaving 52,000 military personnel in country, the left would be all over it like stink on shit. But Bammy is a paragon of truth, so combat is over. (Yea, right.)
Click to expand...

Judging by the news over the past week, there appear to be many on the right who were "taken in" as well.

I could care less who is Prez when it comes to news like this; after a 7 year war, combat ops are officially done in Iraq. If this happened under Bush, I'd have been just as thrilled about it. If someone on the left had complained about 50,000 troops remaining, I'd respond w/ a WTF. Of course we're going to leave a residual force. When haven't we? Vietnam, I suppose, but I always expected a residual to be left in Iraq, and that's how they always talked about it in both admins.

I find the "Obama's lying to you" assertions from the hater crowd to be much more partisan & ridiculous...
 
Onceler said:
"if you think no true combat troops are there to protect the so called 50,000 non combats troops"

Just thought about this line - it's funny. Do you think the 50,000 who are left are not trained soldiers?

They're talking about what the function of the remaining troops will be.

As always, I am so glad I'm smarter than you. But, you do have a "pal" informing you on "the truth," so I guess that's something.
Click to expand...

See, Yurt?

Same thing as your "new" post, which somehow proves me "wrong."

LOL
 
Onceler said:
See, Yurt?

Same thing as your "new" post, which somehow proves me "wrong."

LOL
Click to expand...

you clearly are saying NO combat brigades will be left....you are clearly saying i am wrong...however, the article i just posted in the other thread says exactly what i said here....

you are conveniently ignoring that there will still be two avaition combat brigades left and that the other combat brigades are simply being renamed "advisors"....
 
Yurt said:
you clearly are saying NO combat brigades will be left....you are clearly saying i am wrong...however, the article i just posted in the other thread says exactly what i said here....

you are conveniently ignoring that there will still be two avaition combat brigades left and that the other combat brigades are simply being renamed "advisors"....
Click to expand...

LOL

I love it when desperation kicks in for you.

As I said on this thread, combat ops in Iraq are over. As I also said, this has to do w/ the troops function, not how they are trained.

Got anything to prove that wrong? Or are you just spinning your wheels on a misguided "gotcha" again?
 
Yurt said:
you clearly are saying NO combat brigades will be left........
Click to expand...

Now, it's actually easy to catch you in one of your lies. Can you show me where I said anything other than it's about the mission, not about how they are trained?

LOL

This is pretty good...it always comes down to "you were clearly saying!"
 
Onceler said:
LOL

I love it when desperation kicks in for you.

As I said on this thread, combat ops in Iraq are over. As I also said, this has to do w/ the troops function, not how they are trained.

Got anything to prove that wrong? Or are you just spinning your wheels on a misguided "gotcha" again?
Click to expand...

nah....you're the one spinning because you made such a public mockery of what i was saying and now that an article has been written by armytimes you, being dishonest as usual...have to spin it....

we know onceler, you're never wrong, you're always right....even when you mock me for my source and claiming to be an expert, which i never did....and now what i said has come to light from the army times you're madly scrambling to save face

yawn
 
Yurt said:
nah....you're the one spinning because you made such a public mockery of what i was saying and now that an article has been written by armytimes you, being dishonest as usual...have to spin it....

we know onceler, you're never wrong, you're always right....even when you mock me for my source and claiming to be an expert, which i never did....and now what i said has come to light from the army times you're madly scrambling to save face

yawn
Click to expand...

I'm not wrong. I clearly said combat ops ended, and made fun of you for thinking the 50,000 weren't trained combat soldiers, and clearly stated it's about the mission & not the training, which was reiterated by the army quote I posted.

Dispute any of that. I would love to see that, instead of the fallback "more of Onceler's lies" when you've been smoked again....
 
Onceler said:
Um...Yurt? I'm talking about actual "combat."

Do you know what that word means?
Click to expand...

nice try...you did nothing but counter my assertions in this thread that combat troops will REMAIN...

why you would lie when your words are recorded in a short thread is beyond me
 
Yurt said:
nice try...you did nothing but counter my assertions in this thread that combat troops will REMAIN...

why you would lie when your words are recorded in a short thread is beyond me
Click to expand...

What words did I lie about?

If you look back over the thread, it's you who are distorting what I'm saying.

I mean Jeez, Yurt - if you agree with me that their mission is the thing that changed, what's the difference? What kind of point were you trying to make?

Did anyone really argue that the 50,000 weren't trained soldiers?

You always twist yourself up in a pretzel, just to try to "get" me. You've gotta understand - it makes you look desperate, kind of crazy, and just plain stupid.

Just trying to help....
 
Yurt said:
here is onceler saying "its pretty weird" i would say that combat troops will remain in iraq...IOW....he is saying i'm wrong

its tiring to have to continually show your lies
Click to expand...

Yurt, once again - did you really think the 50,000 were somehow not trained for combat?

As I said, how would they "conceal combat"? Are you really this dumb? It's about FUNCTION. It's about MISSION.

As my follow up post - which you are conveniently ignoring - said, it is not about how they are trained. Who thought that these troops weren't trained soldiers?

You?

If so - big LOL on that, as well....
 
Onceler said:
Yurt, once again - did you really think the 50,000 were somehow not trained for combat?

As I said, how would they "conceal combat"? Are you really this dumb? It's about FUNCTION. It's about MISSION.

As my follow up post - which you are conveniently ignoring - said, it is not about how they are trained. Who thought that these troops weren't trained soldiers?

You?

If so - big LOL on that, as well....
Click to expand...

why would it be weird i keep saying combat troops will remain in iraq?
 
Yurt said:
why would it be weird i keep saying combat troops will remain in iraq?
Click to expand...

You'll have to forgive me. I assumed when I read your post that you weren't a completely ignorant numbskull, and that you knew - as anyone with even a fraction of a brain does - that there is nothing unique about the troops that are remaining that makes them "non combat", and that these are still trained soldiers whose mission changed to a non-combat role.

Since you didn't understand that, and since you seem to think there are 50,000 troops in Iraq who have never been trained to fire a rifle, I wrongly assumed that you were discussing their mission, and implying that Obama had some clandestine role for them that would involve that they remain in a combat role.

My bad. Sorry, stupid.
 
Onceler said:
You'll have to forgive me. I assumed when I read your post that you weren't a completely ignorant numbskull, and that you knew - as anyone with even a fraction of a brain does - that there is nothing unique about the troops that are remaining that makes them "non combat", and that these are still trained soldiers whose mission changed to a non-combat role.

Since you didn't understand that, and since you seem to think there are 50,000 troops in Iraq who have never been trained to fire a rifle, I wrongly assumed that you were discussing their mission, and implying that Obama had some clandestine role for them that would involve that they remain in a combat role.

My bad. Sorry, stupid.
Click to expand...

how odd....given the OP said they were "non combat" and the news articles were all saying the "last" combat brigades had left...i said that was delusional to believe that and you said that was weird...

nice try onceler, your lies are not fooling anyone...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top