English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The U.S. military is likely to maintain and may even increase its force of more than 140,000 troops in Iraq through next spring, the top American commander in the region said Tuesday in one of the gloomiest assessments yet of when troops may come home


Gen. John Abizaid, commander of the U.S. Central Command, said military leaders would consider adding troops or extending the Iraq deployments of other units Until sectarian violence spiked early this year, Bush administration officials had voiced hopes that this election year would see significant U.S. troop reductions in what has become a widely unpopular war.
"If it's necessary to do that because the military situation on the ground requires that, we'll do it," Abizaid said of longer deployments. "If we have to call in more forces because it's our military judgment that we need more forces, we'll do it."

We are in a serious dilemma

2006-09-19 15:43:42 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events Current Events

5 answers

Yeah quit griping, how else could Halliburton get seven billion dollars in no bid contracts if we didn't invade someone? This is good for military contractors, and the oil companies.

2006-09-19 15:53:07 · answer #1 · answered by Repub-lick'n 4 · 1 2

In fact, increasing troops were first suggested by
some Democrat leaders. If other countries would join
forces for freedom, the US wouldn't have to be the one
to send all the forces there. It's like when Africans are
dying in droves, it's the US that sends billions of dollars
to them in the fight of Aids. It always seems to be up to
US to be there when needed.

2006-09-19 15:52:46 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I am all for the draft if our commander in chief thinks its necessary. I think we should double our troops....unpopular I know, but I think the idea of sending as few troops as possible isnt' working....

2006-09-19 15:53:17 · answer #3 · answered by WitchTwo 6 · 0 0

Nope. Think of it this way. US troops are strategically positioned in Iraq, to the west of Iran.

2006-09-21 14:57:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Now that the pot has been broken very strongly feel American blood will not glue it together. Reagan cut and ran. In one military action not of his decision Clinton cut and ran. Let's start a begging battalion. Please President Bush slice and saunter away.

2006-09-19 15:51:38 · answer #5 · answered by Mister2-15-2 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers