An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and nearly one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows. . . .
The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While [b]85% said the U.S. mission is mainly
An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and nearly one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows. . . .
The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While [b]85% said the U.S. mission is mainly
You have a good point there. Conservative pundits have consistently made the claim that our troops are eager to see it through, but this poll apparently brings that claim into serious question. The re-up rate is still high, but very generous re-up bonuses no doubt help keep that figure high…
[quote=“spook”]American objective in Iraq? Troops unsure:U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006
An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and nearly one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows. . . .
The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While [b]85% said the U.S. mission is mainly
“We call our brothers in the battlefields to direct some of their great efforts towards the oil wells and pipelines. . . . The killing of 10 American soldiers is nothing compared to the impact of the rise in oil prices on America and the disruption that it causes in the international economy.” – A jihadist Web site
The two cars that exploded a week ago outside the inner perimeter of Abqaiq, an oil processing facility in Saudi Arabia that is the world’s largest, could have caused more loss of life and economic devastation than the two planes that crashed into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. . . .
The damage to the world economy also would have been severe because the oil market today resembles a car without shock absorbers: The tiniest bump on the road could send consumers and prices bouncing off the ceiling. . .
Osama bin Laden’s strategy is based on the conviction that the way to bring down a superpower is to weaken its economy. We “bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw [from Afghanistan] in defeat,” bin Laden boasted in his October 2004 videotape. “We are continuing in the same policy to make America bleed profusely to the point of bankruptcy.” . . .
Striking oil, which jihadists call “the provision line and the feeding to the artery of the life of the crusader’s nation,” is relatively easy and effective. Terrorists no longer need to come to the United States to wreak havoc here. They can hit our energy supply near the source, where they enjoy strong support on the ground.
Politically motivated attacks on oil pipelines in Iraq have kept more than 1 million barrels per day off the global oil market. Had this oil been in the market, the price per barrel would have been $10 to $15 lower, according to most energy analysts."