Dubstepforum.com

alien pimp wrote:who the fuck said this is as good as fact? did you read the entire thread like magma does?

did i say you did? obviously not every conspiracy theorist is as level headed as you and as able to intelligently analyse and evaluate the veracity of sources...

this being just one example (and sorry to single you out here gender)

gender wrote:asif we needed anymore proof that there was foul play involved here, reports are now incoming that Haiti is rich in oil this would explain the military presence in Haiti. to those who say "we're there because we're sorting things out, giving AID, all your conspiracies are mad" i'll put things in perspective. When the Tsunami hit Asia, the US only deployed 15,000 troops to an area stretching from India to Indonesia. The disaster also affected many more people than the disaster in Haiti. Now the US is expecting to deploy over 100,000 troops to Haiti.

/thread

that's pretty easy to explain away given a basic understanding of geography and the differing cirscumstances but somehow it's presented as such conclusive proof that the thread can end there. as i said, there may well be more sinister reasons at heart but let's not get caught up in paranoia and start jumping to silly conclusions and throwing wild accusations about

badger wrote:

alien pimp wrote:who the fuck said this is as good as fact? did you read the entire thread like magma does?

did i say you did? obviously not every conspiracy theorist is as level headed as you and as able to intelligently analyse and evaluate the veracity of sources...

this being just one example (and sorry to single you out here gender)

gender wrote:asif we needed anymore proof that there was foul play involved here, reports are now incoming that Haiti is rich in oil this would explain the military presence in Haiti. to those who say "we're there because we're sorting things out, giving AID, all your conspiracies are mad" i'll put things in perspective. When the Tsunami hit Asia, the US only deployed 15,000 troops to an area stretching from India to Indonesia. The disaster also affected many more people than the disaster in Haiti. Now the US is expecting to deploy over 100,000 troops to Haiti.

/thread

that's pretty easy to explain away given a basic understanding of geography and the differing cirscumstances but somehow it's presented as such conclusive proof that the thread can end there. as i said, there may well be more sinister reasons at heart but let's not get caught up in paranoia and start jumping to silly conclusions and throwing wild accusations about

i think your missing the point of scale
haiti is tiny, 100,000 troops seems ridiculous

to geek it up, haiti is 249sq km

thats 401 US soldiers per square km
not even taking into account all the other foreign troops there as well!

hackman wrote:

badger wrote:

alien pimp wrote:who the fuck said this is as good as fact? did you read the entire thread like magma does?

did i say you did? obviously not every conspiracy theorist is as level headed as you and as able to intelligently analyse and evaluate the veracity of sources...

this being just one example (and sorry to single you out here gender)

gender wrote:asif we needed anymore proof that there was foul play involved here, reports are now incoming that Haiti is rich in oil this would explain the military presence in Haiti. to those who say "we're there because we're sorting things out, giving AID, all your conspiracies are mad" i'll put things in perspective. When the Tsunami hit Asia, the US only deployed 15,000 troops to an area stretching from India to Indonesia. The disaster also affected many more people than the disaster in Haiti. Now the US is expecting to deploy over 100,000 troops to Haiti.

/thread

that's pretty easy to explain away given a basic understanding of geography and the differing cirscumstances but somehow it's presented as such conclusive proof that the thread can end there. as i said, there may well be more sinister reasons at heart but let's not get caught up in paranoia and start jumping to silly conclusions and throwing wild accusations about

i think your missing the point of scale
haiti is tiny, 100,000 troops seems ridiculous

100,000 troops is alot better than 10,000 troops, though. I'm sure the Haitians think it's not enough.

More the merrier.

lol

Does the US actually have 100,000 troops to spare?

Doubt it. Where did this 100,000 figure come from!?

danoldboy wrote:Doubt it. Where did this 100,000 figure come from!?

The average American waistline covers about 3 people anyway, innit.

hackman wrote:i think your missing the point of scale
haiti is tiny, 100,000 troops seems ridiculous

yeah maybe you're right. might just be good old benevolent uncle sam doing what he can to help though?

karmacazee wrote:Does the US actually have 100,000 troops to spare?

i thought that but a quick check shows the US army including all reserves and so on is about 1 million strong, so although i'd be surprised they have 100,000 just sat at home it's conceivable

badger wrote:

hackman wrote:i think your missing the point of scale
haiti is tiny, 100,000 troops seems ridiculous

yeah maybe you're right. might just be good old benevolent uncle sam doing what he can to help though?

karmacazee wrote:Does the US actually have 100,000 troops to spare?

i thought that but a quick check shows the US army including all reserves and so on is about 1 million strong, so although i'd be surprised they have 100,000 just sat at home it's conceivable

That's not 1 million fighting troops though is it. Most of that figure will be support/training/logistics etc. Logistical support capability is the biggest factor in determining deployment sizes, not the amount of men willing to hold guns.

Where did the 100k figure actually come from?

magma wrote:Where did the 100k figure actually come from?

came from gender but no idea where he got it from, would be interested to see if it's a reliable source

danoldboy wrote:That's not 1 million fighting troops though is it. Most of that figure will be support/training/logistics etc. Logistical
support capability is the biggest factor in determining deployment sizes, not the amount of men willing to hold guns.

true, but without knowing where the figure comes from the 100,000 might be including all those support troops. in fact it almost definitely would do

badger wrote:

magma wrote:Where did the 100k figure actually come from?

came from gender but no idea where he got it from, would be interested to see if it's a reliable source

danoldboy wrote:That's not 1 million fighting troops though is it. Most of that figure will be support/training/logistics etc. Logistical
support capability is the biggest factor in determining deployment sizes, not the amount of men willing to hold guns.

true, but without knowing where the figure comes from the 100,000 might be including all those support troops. in fact it almost definitely would do

I'd say you're right

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... ntent;col1

oh lol gender i did ask for your original source......
search on google seems to just say 10000
my bad

haha there we go then

badger wrote: i thought that but a quick check shows the US army including all reserves and so on is about 1 million strong, so although i'd be surprised they have 100,000 just sat at home it's conceivable

Holy crap, that's a lot of flippin soldiers man.

But to put that into a weird perspective, the NHS employs about 1.3 m people. We could whoop their army with our nurses!

I think i have just wasted 20 minutes of my life reading this thread. I thought it had died a death on friday.

So I have an image of the entire American population conducting a musical version of the mole from Thunderbirds in aid of haiti...


I can dig that.

im not at home right now but i will post my source when i get back. if im not mistaken that figure is NOT the number of troops + support that is there now, more the number of troops that WILL BE THERE in the next few months. i made the point saying that it is very suspicious indeed that the US needs that many troops in such a small area. i also think it is more suspicious that they are gradually building up troops, especially under circumstances which makes them appear like they are masquerading as aid workers. by the way, why do we need such a large number of combat troops in Haiti again??

on a scarier note there are strong indications that the US (i use the term US for both America and all its western allies) will be involved at some point in this year in yet another large scale military conflict, the implications being that Haiti is a strategic base for the US. again, i am not at home and as such will post sources for this when im home. obviously i can't confirm or deny any of this, as its just speculation (and possibly wild speculation at that).... but it is still interesting to think about nonetheless. BUT given the US's obvious disregard for starting wars i can't see why this wouldn't happen. Political tension seems to be hotting up alot recently... and now that the US is calling for peace talks in afghanistan its not completely alien to imagine that they are doing this in preparation for another (possibly larger) military conflict so they would have more troops to place elsewhere. things seem to be happening at an alarming rate... we certainly do live in interesting times.

To clarify: this is all speculation. i am not presenting this as fact. however if you look at the news (and by news i mean independent journalism, not just BBC and CNN) it would appear to be quite possible.

in answer to badger: yes the "/thread" comment was silly, hence me getting of my high horse in the next post. i was merely raising a post that actions such as that are very very suspicious. i was raising the point of what makes haiti so special to send such a large number of troops to such a small area, and send a relatively small number of troops to such a large area? yes paranoia if you want to call it that. but i think its justified. the US might have very legitimate excuses for the whole thing... but judging on the past actions of the US and its imperialistic nature i would tend to believe that foul play is involved until i hear/see proof that its not.

sorry for the essay

The US sent troops into Haiti in 2008 when the hurricanes struck and didn't use it as a launchpad for an invasion then. Don't see why they would now either.

We'll see.