From: "Rich Gauszka" 

Yep - just cause Rumsfeld doesn't know the definition of civil war doesn't
mean it's not happening. The only 'frenzied' activity will be the
apologists for the Bushies seeking explanation for an 'involuntary' call up
when just several months ago they were parroting a reduction of forces and
denigrating those who said that was unrealistic in the face of civil war.



"Mark"  wrote in message
news:44ec83b5$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> You guys have been parroting "civil war" since days after
Saddams statue
> fell (hell, I bet if two Iraqis, a Sunni and a Shia, were shinnying up the
> rope at the same time that would be the first sign of it), maybe someday
> it'll be true, but I doubt it.
>
> Here's the less frenzied version of the IRR call up:  Reuters version is causing such excitement escapes me, they've always said
> troop levels will go up and down according to need>
> http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArticle.aspx?id=534
> The authorization allows up to 2,500 Marines to be on involuntary active
> duty at any time. But the actual number will depend on how many Marines
> volunteer for deployments within the global war on terrorism. The service
> has set up a Web site, https://mcmps.manpower.usmc.mil/MCMPS/GIDA/, to
> allow IRR Marines and recent retirees to volunteer for war on terror
> assignments.
>
> Officials envision a much smaller number of involuntary activations than
> the maximum authorization. "There is that chance (of calling up the
> maximum authorized), even though it seems rather slight," O'Connor said.
>
> Involuntarily activated Marines will receive at least five months notice
> before they have to report for an average of 12 to 18 months of additional
> active duty, officials said. The service is specifically targeting Marines
> in the combat arms, communications, intelligence, engineer and military
> police career fields.
>
>
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> news:44ec8060$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> It's the out of control civil war  that will expend all the Pentagon
>> resources for some time to come.  Were fucked if we stay and probably
>> more fucked in the region if we leave. George W Bush the best 'fuckin'
>> president we ever had?
>>
>>
>>
>> "Phil Payne" 
wrote in message
>> news:44ec6cdd$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> "Phil Payne"
 wrote in message
>>> news:44ec5a55$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote
in message
>>>> news:44ec53cc{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> > How long will it take before the pool of 35,000 is exhausted?
>>>>
>>>> A news item here today suggests that half of the British troops
>>>> currently
>>>> engaged will be withdrawn next year, leaving half
"indefinitely".
>>>
>>> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1221071.ece
>>>
>>> "A force of around 4,000 British troops will stay behind
in Iraq for an
>>> indefinite period, even after all provinces controlled by the UK are
>>> handed
>>> over to the Baghdad government in nine months' time, senior defence
>>> sources
>>> said yesterday."
>>>
>>> Just over half.  It looks like the US is building pretty permanent
>>> bases,
>>> too.  Welcome to your Northern Ireland - the Iraqi resistance will not
>>> rest
>>> until you're gone.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5