In this post, you will find great Troops Quotes from famous people, such as John Ensign, Stephen Kinzer, Erik Prince, J. D. Hayworth, Charles Lindbergh. You can learn and implement many lessons from these quotes.
When American troops findthemselves fighting for their lives, there is no better sound than an A-10 – a plane officially nicknamed the Thunderbolt II but known affectionately by the troops as the Warthog – firing its enormous 30-millimeter gun at the enemy.
I saw the president make the toughcalls in the Situation Room – and today, our troops in Iraq have finally come home so America can do some nation building here at home. That was the change that we believed in. That was the change we fought for. That was the change President Obamadelivered.
I’m trying to raise the awareness of the troops that, when they deploy and go to war, it’s not just them at war – it’s also their family. Their family is having to go through all the hardships and the stresses.
And, of course, in the Philippines there were so many thousands of Americans that were captured by the Japanese and held and who were rescued by Filipino Americans, or Filipinos I should say, and by U.S. troops near the close of the war.
When I’m hard at work, when I’m deep in it, there is no other feeling. For me, my work is at all times building a nation out of thin air. It is manning the troops. It is painting a canvas. It is hitting every high note. It is running a marathon. It is being Beyonce. And it is all of those things at the same time.
Horror moviesstarted to wane around the onset of World War II, and after World War II, when all the troops came home, people weren’t really interested in seeing horror movies, because they had the real horror right on their front doorsteps.
Mexicoattacked United States troops in 1846 because they had moved into disputed border territory; President James Polk used this as a convenient casus belli, but he was preparing a war message for Congress even before the attack.
Don’t kid yourself. President Obama’s decision to withdraw 33,000 troops from Afghanistan before he stands for reelection is not driven by the United States’ ‘position of strength‘ in the war zone as much as it is by grimeconomic and political realities at home.
The American taxpayers should not have to send one more penny on the Administration’s Iraq misadventure. Let’s give our troops the supplies they need to get out of Iraq safely. Let’s bring our troops home.
Simon Bolivar turned over all of his land. He freed all of his slaves, and he turned them into soldiers, and he brought them here. He brought them to Peru and Carabobo, and he workedtogether with the troops of San Martin to liberate this continent. That is Simon Bolivar.
Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year? Let me just put this in fairlysimple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.
One only has to look at the debacle that has unfolded in Iraq after the withdrawal of U.S. troops at the end of 2011 to have a sneakpreview of what could take place in an Afghanistan without some kind of residual American presence.
A lot of people were ambivalent about Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson in 1964 positioned himself as the peace candidate. Once Johnson sent large amounts of troops into battle in 1965, most Americans were behind the war.
I thought Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time and have been fighting to get the Administration to stop its failed policy and bring our troops home.
Spaniards were condemned for appeasing terrorism by voting for withdrawing troops from Iraq in the absence of U.N. authorization – that is, for taking a standrather like that of 70 percent of Americans, who called for the U.N. to take the leading role in Iraq.
We got involved in the Rwanda peace process for the simple reason that there was a decision which was taken by the Security Council, because the troops were in Uganda, and we decided to have a military presence.
Voters have consistently brought up the topic of ‘endless wars’ and demands to ‘bring the troops home’ to me since I ran for office. It’s not a left-right issue, either: Both sidesquestion our military presence abroad.
When I hear Donald Trump say the American military is a disaster, I want to go through the screen and shake the guy. We ought to have a commander in chief who talks about our troops with respect and gratitude.
Now that our troops are mired in a dangerous effort to defeat the insurgency and are also trying to help rebuild the country, Americans of all political persuasions simply want the United States to succeed and our troops to be as safe as possible.
It used to upset me – now it makes me sad – to see people use patriotism and our troops as a pawn in their political argument. Because I know personally, growing up in a military family, the sacrifice that is made on a daily basis.
The United States armed forces and coalition troops deserve recognition and support for their work to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and ensure the safety and security of the American people, civilians abroad, and the people of Iraq.
No one ever said that fighting the war against terrorism and defending our homeland would be easy. So let’s support our troops, law enforcementworkers, and our mission to keep our nation and our children safe in the days and years to come.
Do we want an Attorney General who will play politics with the law, play politics with the court and just play politics with international conventions designed to protect our troops? I do not want to play that kind of politics. I am going to vote against Alberto Gonzales.
I understand the risks associated with being a soldier. But I think as members of Congress, we should not intensify the chance that we’ll have to commit troops to a military conflict unless it’s absolutely necessary to defend the nation.
We in this Congress have a choice. The American people have a right to exercise a choice on this issue, as to whether our men and women will continue to fight and die in a war based on deception and fantasy, or to start bringing the troops home.
In Afghanistan, there is a plan to build democracy; hundreds of thousands of troops are protecting it. There is a plan to rebuild and reconstruct there. But many thousands of Americans die from violence and poverty every year and we don’t have a plan for reconstruction at home.
Europe, the U.S., and their allies can defeat the terrorists of Islamic State, or ISIS. The first step is making the decision to fight back. The next step is understanding that drones and standoff missiles will not be enough. Ground troops will be needed.
As I said a moment ago, there is no higherpriority in our budget, or certainly in the budgets of the past few years, than providing for what is needed for the protection and security of our country and support of our troops.
For if the Germans do not help defend the West, American and Canadian troops must cross the seas to do the job, and I venture to believe that the troops – if not the statesmen – regard this as an interference at least in their own domesticaffairs.
Arthur Hays Sulzberger
While we are deploying troops in their thousands, we lose the chance to build up their basic skills.
The Erdogan government’s first major step outside of the U.S. alliance was during the Bush Administration, when it wouldn’t let Washington use Turkey as a launching ground for U.S. troops entering Iraq in 2003.
In the short run, using militias might be the quickest and easiest way to improve order on Iraq’s streets and uproot the terrorists and guerrillas who routinely attack American troops and civilian targets.
An American government that really wanted to stick it to the Chinese Communist Party would be reinforcing U.S. alliances in Asia, instead of threatening to withdraw troops from South Korea and Japan until they pay extortionate rates for U.S. bases.
Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today’s Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator. And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.
At the beginning of June 1944, the war was reaching a climax. German troops had been brutalised by the savagery of the ongoing fighting in Russia, where the Red Army was secretly preparing its vast encirclement of the Germans’ Army Group Centre.
Before the trip began we mapped out three primary goals: 1) to see and meet with our American troops, and thank them for their bravery and sacrifice; 2) to assess the security situation in Iraq; and 3) to give our support to Iraq’s national unity government.
Being a soccercoach is just like being a general who has the responsibility of guiding his troops into battle. If a coach acts too emotionally on the bench, his players cannot focus on their game on the field.
The general commanding congratulates his troops on their brilliant and successful occupation of Roanoke Island. The courage and steadiness they have shown under fire is what he expected from them, and he accepts it as a token of future victory.
Americans simply ask for, not just Democrats in the House but also the Senate has asked the President for a clear plan as it relates to dealing with the issue of Iraq and our troops and making sure that we can bring families together in the very near future.
There are a lot of self-imposed restrictions by people who somehow believe they have to fall in with a certain military cant. There was always a sense that we had to put things into words that would touch our troops’ hearts, not just their heads.
General Pickett, finding the battle broken while the enemy was still reinforcing, called the troops off.
During a time of war, we ask our troops to give their best even to the point of sacrificing their own lives. When compared against that, how much of a sacrifice is it for a president to engage in a possibly contentious debate with Congress about whether military action is a good idea?
Our top priority is our troops, who are making the extraordinary effort to fulfill the mission they have been given. Democrats will work with this Administration to better define that mission and a realisticexpectation of success in Iraq.
In addition to a timeline, I have proposed that U.S. troops be removed from front line combat positions in Iraqi cities and towns, turning over daily security patrols, interactions with citizens, and any offensive security actions to the Iraqis themselves.
Should President Clinton have killed Osama bin Laden when he had the opportunity in 1990s? Should President Bush have sent the U.S. military into Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein in 2003? Should President Obama have withdrawn all troops from Iraq in 2011? Such questions provide no real insight into future considerations.
The troops are therefore empowered and are in duty bound in this war to use without mitigation even against women and children any means that will lead to success.
Anyone who has to fight, even with the most modern weapons, against an enemy in complete command of the air, fights like a savage against modern European troops, under the same handicaps and with the same chances of success.
Actually I can’t imagine Nato troops on the ground and I think it’s also important to send that very clear message to the UN and other organisations right now so that appropriate plans can be in place in due time and the Gaddafi regime can collapse soon.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen
A lot of what a military officer does is not just leading troops in combat. It’s also doing budgets. It’s solvingcomplex problems. If you can sit down with warlords, you can certainly sit down with differentparties and folks with different interests and come out with an amenable solution.