Am I the only one who heard during the Senate "speeches" last night that there will be a mandatory

[JAYJDF]

reduction in force in the spring since troop rotation has to commence then?

[SaveOurDemocracy]

1. I also heard that ...

evidently will not have replacements to send.

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. After a second 'surge', anything will look like a reduction

I've heard some people speculating that Bush would push the numbers as high as 200,000. Look at what they did in 2004...more deployed, then the WH "announces" troop reduction of 10,000, then turns around and re-deploys and announces another reduction rinse and repeat. It's going to be the same thing.

[RDANGELO]

5. and they just send the same troops back over and over

They say we have to have victory . We can't retreat. But eventually, we just won't have the troops. There is no shared sacrifice, and none of them even mention the word draft. This is so wrong; they should all rot in hell.

[jmp]

6. But eventually ...

But eventually, we just won't have the troops.

We are in no danger of running out of troops to send. We have almost 700,000 active duty Soldiers and Marines ... and plenty more in the Reserves and the National Guard.

A lack of troops will not end this surge or this war.

[jmp]

3. That's BS.

Bush can extend their tours for as long as he wants. They are even contemplating increasing our troops numbers in Iraq.

[rateyes]

4. Whoever said it,

is full of shit.