Will the US Armed Forces Suffer Huge Cutbacks After Bush Leaves?
146890
Hell yeah, they will. There is a huge excess being poured into the unjust war.
457997
I think the end of 2008 is when the U.S. military should start leaving.  The Iraqi military will be in control of 75% of Iraq at the end of the summer and probably 90 something percent at the end up 2008.  They could finish it from there.
460684
None for me, it goes to the American government, who takes way more than they need, if Bush hadn't grown the national debt AND FAILED to make the proper tax reform! between that and the tax CUTS for the RICH!! ... it's just bs, I won't go off on it here.\n-Duo
805423
America is just going to have to suck it up and leave like we had to do in Vietnam. It is disgraceful and we have Mr. Bush to thank for that.
627204
End force reductions is nothing new in the military. The AF has implemented several force restructuring plans over the years after the Cold War, all branch of the military have. Today the main conflict the US is involved in, is an Army/Marine war. The Navy and AF are reducing in order to shift resources and financing to the Army and Marines. Another way the Navy and AF are contributing is taking on tasks not normally done by those branches. The Navy has re-started the Brown water navy, river patrol, and is going to provide several thousand sailors to the ground effort and is in the process of sending sailors to the Marine ground infantry training facilities. The Air Force has not been as receptive in taking on the non-traditional task and has to deal with the over manned specialties by no allowing re-enlistments, offer to retrain to an undermanned specialty, transfer to the Army, or finish the obligated years with the Air Force Reserve or Air National Guard.
941576
No, actually B. B, the move to the center will help the country, I see a future now and the last 6 years I saw none. Just more war and more restrictions of our freedoms. I think this will be guarded better with the moderate democrats then it was with the moderate repuglicans.
1127212
No, not at all. \n\nAs early as summer of 2000, I was taking bets on when --- not if, when --- GWB would get us involved in a mid-east war (provided he secured the presidency, of course). Giving the military to George W Bush was like giving a hammer to a three year old. Suddenly everything looks like a nail.\n\nThere were so many other options available this evil man chose to ignore those other options in his rush to war. He has deliberately and dishonorably sacrificed the lives of our sons and daughters to his pride and ambition.
733158
True.\n\n"major combat operations have ended"--Bush on 05-01-2003
13206
I think at the beginning of 2007, our troop levels will be below 100,000.  Reason:  More Iraqi Military units are becoming self-sufficient.  They will be equipped better by then with vehicles and armor.  The Iraqi people will rather be policed by their own than outsiders.  Recruiting will be hurting, because the Army fell short for FY 2005.  They just sent out 80,000 letters to everyone who left the Army within the last 5 years saying we want you back.  The Army tapped into the  FY 2006 delayed entry pool to meet FY 2005 numbers, and they still fell short.  Stress on the force and equipment will take a huge toll.  Stress on the families that have their Service Members away 2 out of the last 3 years.  As our coalition partners pull out, it will put pressure on the US politicians to draw down.  As the presenditial elections heat up in 2008, the Republicans will have to draw down to get reelected.  Hope this helps.
1085093
unfortunately, yes.  as the commander in chief of the armed forces, the president can send them in to any place he wants, and technically they are supposed to follow his orders.  in the event that he doesnt leave office, impeachment obviously wouldnt work, and the only way to get rid of him would be to kill him, as Thomas Jefferson alluded to when he said that the people had the right and responsibility to overthrow a government that is corrupt and reestablish the old system.\n\nnow, to your question.  in debate on the house floor a few years ago (right before the invasion of iraq), representative mcdermott quoted an article from the Sydney Morning Herald titled, "Foundations are in Place for Martial Law in the United States."  Bascially, during the Iran-Contra Affair, Ronald Reagan issued an executive order giving FEMA even broader powers than Congress gave it, and among these powers were the ability to prevent violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition against a US military invasion abroad through the use of the military, basically, declaring martial law.  all of reagans papers, including this order, were sealed by the bush administration.  therefore, we do not know the full story.  \n\ni hope that this answers your question.  ive got the whole speech, and id be happy to give it to you if you want it.
154413
Very sorry for your loss! And yes lets bring them home! It was for a lie! You get these idiots who think we leave and it will get worse. NO, it is bad over there because of us being there. They DONT want us there. Over 80% say for us to leave. The terrorists are there because we are there. They Hate US! We have killed most of the children. The violence will almost stop when we leave, but ya know what will a dozen perminate bases all built, we will be there FOREVER! So many sheep that believe the president. Does'nt the people notice all the lies and corruption that has been coming down on this administration? WAKE UP!
63227
Don't join the army under the Bush Administration.
1152192
The United States is running a huge balance of payments deficit by spending more overseas than it exports, which I take it includes its expenditure in Iraq. Also, all Governments borrow and presumably Bush is mortgaging the United States' future.\n\nAs an Englishman I am all too conscious that the United Kingdom's power in the world was ruined by its debt funded expenditure on the First and Second World Wars. The Cambridge historian Correlli Barnett wrote a series of books (e.g. "Audit of War") to point out that in the end there is no point in exercising miltary power at the expense of capital investment.
1084676
Yes, eventually. If more of you that want us out would enlist and we had enough troops for shorter rotations, we would have teh strength to leave sooner.
952157
If they cut funds, expect a body count double the current.  We are barely accomplishing mission with what we have there now.  Cut funding and the Democrats will have killed many Soldiers.  \n\nI pray it does not happen.  If it does, the Dems are going to have blood on their hands...the'll prob blame it on Bush though...
960947
I say in about 18 months. But we will cut and run. It's just a matter of time. Boy!! What a sight that will be. I was around when we ran from Vietnam. On that day the warmongers did cry. Watch the warmongers cry when we lose Iraq. Bush will cry the loudest.
863665
It is true, the Democrats called for his resignation late this past summer but were blown off.   \n\nBy staying until the end of the year, Rumsfeld will get his place in the history book, but it won't be flattering. \n\n I'm sure there are MANY Republicans who lost their seats who are PO'd with the President for not asking Rumsfeld to leave sooner.\n\nThis is one time the President's loyalty did a disservice to the men/women in the military, the country, and fellow Republicans.