U.S. Says More Troops Are Needed in Iraq

[newyawker99]

The top U.S. commander in Iraq said Thursday he needs more international forces to deal with an array of potential security threats, including al-Qaida terrorists, Iranian fighters and clashes between ethnic and religious militias.

With Washington pushing a new U.N. resolution aimed at persuading more nations to contribute troops, Russia gave its first signal that it could send peacekeepers to Iraq, and Britain said it was considering whether to increase its force levels.

In Tikrit, meanwhile, U.S. troops battled guerrillas in the streets after a mortar attack. No U.S. casualties were reported.

At a Baghdad news conference, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. commander here, said that "if a militia or an internal conflict of some nature were to erupt ... that would be a challenge out there that I do not have sufficient forces for."


more troops needed

[emad]

1. Just hope the Poles get this one right now that they're in charge

Say the word "troop" and in Polish it means corpse......

[AWD]

2. Say WHAT????

From a different story....

http://www.cnn.com/

Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, on his way to the Persian Gulf, said there is no need to send more American troops to Iraq.

Oh, I get it....we don't need more AMERICAN troops.

The UN should agree to helping us....IF we sign Kyoto, the ABM Missile treaty, agree to nuclear proliferation, AND apologize.

[glarius]

3. The ironic thing is all the countries the USA is calling on now

were AGAINST the war for the very reasons that are being experienced now. Bush & company poo- pooed all the warnings about creating the mess that Iraq has become....Now they are whining that "the rest of the world" has to join in to "fight the war on terror!", insisting on linking Iraq to 9/11 when THERE IS NO LINK!...Sickening!

[Zech Marquis]

4. but Wolfie told Congress

that General Sinseki's troop level estimate were way off the mark :argh:

[Beetwasher]

5. Goddammit! The World Better Pony up the Cannon Fodder

for our fuck up or else!

[Rose Siding]

8. Yeah, I love the qualifier

He needs "international" troops. Because he doesn't have "sufficient forces". Yet that OBVIOUS alternative- US troops- isn't any kind of option. Don't dare approach THAT conclusion, oh no. The voters might notice.

So screwy. They just won't cede any "dominance"- Powell's new favorite word. How can you expect others to trust the desire to partner when you throw out that word? That's what got us here in the first place and now they dig a bigger hole.

[Nottingham]

6. Iraq is such a Quagmire!

I see the whole Bush Administration Drowning! :crazy:

[saigon68]

7. THE BASTARDS

Is anyone as outraged as I am over this???

$70,000,000,000.00 to blow the crap out of a country that has all the demeanor of a homeless drunk and panhandler on the streets of D. C.

I guess we have NO---

1. Children to educate in the U.S.

2. Seniors who need prescription drugs.

3. Unemployed workers here.

4. Veterans of this or prior Wars to take care of.

5. Crumbling infastructure to fix.

6. Electrical or water grid problems.

7. Problems with social security.

8. Lagging economy with 2 million fewer jobs than 3 years ago.


Ho- Hum what uncaring scum ---Cheney, Wolfie and the CHIMP.

[newyawker99]

9. I agree saigon. We can go to hell while Shrub secures

the oil supply. :argh:

[amberdisc]

10. and...

I thought the plan was to punish France and ignore Germany!

____________________________
Old European Chocolate Maker