For First Time, More US Troops in Afghanistan than Iraq

Ok Now will A B C tell us as in the past how many are being killed under Obuma .or for some reason maybe they the White House said to keep it quiet ?????/

I would feel a lot safer with these soliders guarding the borders of the United States instead of making money for Daddy Warbucks.

I thought out troops were going to be out of Iraq by May 21, 2010.
Obama promised!
Posted by: drjohn | May 24, 2010 3:07:56 PM
_______________________________
Hard to believe your opinions when you have little grasp of facts . ..
February 27, 2009
WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Obama said Friday he plans to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of August 2010.
President Obama talks about his Iraq War withdrawal plan at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, on Friday.
Between 35,000 to 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq, he said. They would be withdrawn gradually until all U.S. forces are out of Iraq by December 31, 2011 — the deadline set under an agreement the Bush administration signed with the Iraqi government last year.

Under the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) approved by GW Bush on his way out the door.
Joe Biden will be out there taking credit for victory in Iraq, even though the word ‘victory’ was not even in the Democrats’ vocabulary in 2006 and 2007.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals emphatically smacked down the FCC’s regulatory proposals in Comcast v. FCC. But Obama’s not going to let the court get in his way. He’s going to “go nuclear” and defy the courts. FCC Chairman Genachowski will announce today his intention to reclassify broadband Internet as an old-fashioned telephone system as a pretext for pervasive regulatory control.” The pretext for pervasive regulatory control means once they have their foot in the door — once they have control — Obama and the FCC will go about instituting their own version of the “Fairness Doctrine” on the Internet.

It will never be Obama’s war,unless things dramatically improve:then Joe can get out front and claim credit like he did with Iraq.The massive increase in Afghanistan deaths is a direct result of Obama’s change in war strategy,but you can be assured that it will still be Bush’s fault.If Obama had the guts to have a press conference he might have to take a question on the subject,along with a lot of other uncomfortable questions.How long did Bush go without a press conference?

Mary Said: “Over 41% have occurred since Obama took office. Is that the Hope and Change liberals voted for?”
=======================================
Another ‘right-whiner’ Republican who has no understanding of military operations.
Mary, the degree of casualties in Afghanistan has NOTHING to do with who was President, it has to do with the types of operations the troops are involved with and the NUMBER of troops available to do those operations.
During the Bush years, there were not enough troops on the ground to execute daily attacks (offensive operations) against the Taliban in all areas of Afghanistan, so “engagements” were limited by the number of troops we had on the ground. With the increase in troop numbers, more offensive operations are taking place, therefore more casualties will occur…. it’s the nature of war.
Just your own reference below shows casualties going up each year as George Bush slowly increased the troop numbers…. well, same thing happened under Obama, except the troop numbers significantly increased under him.

“It was never about war.”
Exactly it was about being lied to for an unnecessary war that had nothing to do with threats to this country.
“Despite continuing deterioration in the Middle East and escalating military and civilian casualties, Wikipedia only documents THREE major anti-war protests since Obama took office.”
At least 2 major anti war protests have occurred on the anniversary of the Iraq invasion every year.
Many people that were against the Iraq war support our action in Afghanistan because they actually have something to do with 9/11 and terrorism.

A recent Rasmussen poll showed that only 41% of Likely U.S. Voters now believe it is possible for the United States to win the nearly nine-year-old war in Afghanistan. Thirty-six percent (36%) disagree and say it is not possible for America to win the war. Another 23% are not sure.
The same poll showed that 48% now say ending the war in Afghanistan is a more important goal than winning it.
For all the bluster that Afghanistan was “the necessary war”, the poll numbers do not reflect resounding support for Obama’s war strategy or confidence in his abilities as CIC.

“A recent Rasmussen poll showed that only 41% of Likely U.S. Voters”
Ahh Repulbimussen…telling the right wing lemmings their views are popular since 2002.

Mary: “Liberals railed against “McSame” because he was a “warmonger” and promised that a vote for him meant more war.”
=======================================
Geeze Mary, grow out of the 1960s will you?… and “grow up” with your comments about “liberals” and “warmongers”
Democrats such as myself, and I happen to be in the military weren’t against “war” necessarily, we were against the fact that the we were in Iraq, a country that had NO CONNECTION TO 9-11… “Zero”, “Nada”, “Niente”,
NO connection whatsoever”…. Your simplistic and shallow attempt to paint the argument as Democrats were against the war and republicans were for it is pathetic.
Learn what the dispute is before you attempt to argue your point.

“Well, he’s gone now, so we can now focus back on the area where the 9-11 attacks were planned from.”
Pakistan and Yemen?

please jest make sure my guy comes home safe!!!! thats all that i ask :(.