No additional troops are needed in Iraq. That war is being won, and the highest probability is for a gradual reduction in American troop strength over the next year or two.
I am unclear how you got into your current state but below are three news articles that will help you get back to reality.
The current targets of the terrorists-the UN and fellow Islamics-are of far less concern to us than the previous ones-the WTC, the Pentagon, and the White House. Bush has that enemy cornered (or "triangled", to be more accurate) in Iraq.
Really.......you're special!
And their allies, the anti-American left, is bottled up here at home...
LOL!
kansascity.com
<font color=blue>"There is an insufficient sense of urgency in Washington, and needs on the ground in Iraq are going unmet. Contrary to administration assurances, our military force levels are obviously inadequate," wrote McCain, who recently returned from Iraq.<font color=black>
washingtonpost.com
<font color=blue>It was the latest in escalating violence in Afghanistan, where guerrillas from the ousted radical Islamic Taliban government have appeared to regroup, launching bolder and better-coordinated attacks against Afghan government targets. Four U.S. soldiers have been killed during fighting in less than two weeks. <font color=black>
foxnews.com
<font color=blue>TONY SNOW, FOX NEWS: The Bush administration appears more open to the idea of accepting United Nations help in Iraq. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage says Washington might accept a U.N. fighting force under an American commander, and the U.S. ground commander in Iraq would like to see broader international participation in peacekeeping efforts. |
