Top 1200 American Troops Quotes & Sayings

The new troops in Iraq need to be Iraqi troops.

Withdrawal of American troops must be a unilateral act, as the invasion of Vietnam by the American government was a unilateral act in the first place.

I think the American people should know there's already strong influences toward another deployment of American troops in an open-ended commitment.

I would not use American ground forces in Syria. I think that would be a very serious mistake. I don't think American troops should be holding territory, which is what they would have to do as an occupying force. I don't think that is a smart strategy.

Byrnes... was concerned about Russia's postwar behavior. Russian troops had moved into Hungary and Rumania, and Byrnes thought it would be very difficult to persuade Russia to withdraw her troops from these countries, that Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might, and that a demonstration of the bomb might impress Russia.

It is a key fact about American policy in Vietnam that the withdrawel of American troops was built into it from the start. None of the presidents who waged war in Vietnam contemplated an open-ended campaign; all promised the public that American troops would be able to leave in the not-too-remote future. The promise of withdrawel precluded a policy of occupation of the traditional colonial sort, in which a great power simply imposes its will on a small one indefinitely.

Our primary threat today is ISIS. And because Hillary Clinton failed to renegotiate a status of forces agreement that would have allowed some American combat troops to remain in Iraq and secure the hard fought gains the American soldier had won by 2009, ISIS was able to be literally conjured up out of the desert, and it's overrun vast areas that the American soldier had won in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I'm not willing to commit American taxpayers' money anymore or American troops on the ground in another Middle Eastern country.

So one important lesson of Vietnam is, the first casualty of an unwise and unjust war are the American troops called on to fight it. Their service should be honored.

The speed, accuracy and devastating power of American Artillery won confidence and admiration from the troops it supported and inspired fear and respect in their enemy.

Conventional wisdom holds that setting a timetable for getting American troops out of Iraq would be a mistake.

Our troops are the best in the world. I have absolute confidence in the ability of the troops who are here, or additional troops, to do their part.

Three years into the war, tens of thousands of American troops remain targets of a growing Iraqi insurgency.

Once again, President Clinton is using American troops to deflect attention from his record of lies, distortions, obstructions of justice and abuse of power.

I am shocked at the attitude of our American troops. They have no respect for death, the courage of an enemy soldier, or many of the ordinary decencies of life.

Every single war that you see go down is illegal. They're breaking the Geneva Convention, and they're breakin' all kinds of sh*t they ain't supposed to be. All these soldiers that's dyin', every talkin' about, "Support our troops, support our troops," yeah we support our troops, but what are they fightin' for? Let's support 'em for the right reason. Let's tell our troops the truth, and maybe they wouldn't be out there fightin' these wars, because there are a lot of these troops that don't even wanna be out there if you talk to them.

I deplore the need or the use of troops anywhere to get American citizens to obey the orders of constituted courts.

Senator Kerry does not support our troops. If he had won the election, there wouldn't be any troops left in Iraq. President Bush, on the other hand, has given our troops an opportunity to fight without end. That's creating jobs. In fact, the president's policies helped create 104 more job openings last month. Now who's stupid, Senator?

It will take time to eradicate a cancer like Isil. And any time we take military action, there are risks involved - especially to the servicemen and women who carry out these missions. But I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil.

Withdrawal of US troops will become like salted peanuts to the American public: The more US troops come home, the more will be demanded.

Forty-five percent of Iraqi citizens think it is morally okay to attack American troops.

It's perfectly natural to desire more troops when engaged in a military operation facing serious obstacles, and the more troops you have, probably, the [lower the] risk of causalities.

I think to see American troops in an American city is, you know, the sum of all of our fears.

When American troops find themselves 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.

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.

We are not putting ground troops into Iraq ever again. And we're not putting ground troops into Syria. We're going to defeat ISIS without committing American ground troops.

That's what supporting the troops is really all about - making sure American grunts get the right stuff!

American troops and American taxpayers are shouldering a huge burden with no end in sight because Mr. Bush took us to war on false premises and with no plan to win the peace.

There used to be the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. There used to be Soviet troops in the GDR. And we must honestly admit that they were occupation troops, which remained in Germany after WWII under the guise of allied troops. Now these occupation troops are gone, the Soviet Union has collapsed, and the Warsaw Pact is no more. There is no Soviet threat, but NATO and U.S. troops are still in Europe. What for?

I think the behavior of the troops has been a huge factor in the rise of the insurgency and in the rise of the anti-American feelings there[in Iraq].

As costs mount, in lives and dollars, it is natural to second guess, but one lesson I hope we have learned is that the U.S. cannot go it alone in a policy that leaves American troops taking all the risk and American taxpayers paying all of the costs.

The American people don't want additional troops on the ground.

If you go back into military history, the person who's leading the troops ought to be in with the troops and not just standing on the backline sending them into battle.

Jan 1899 You must aim at the Staff College, but for the love of God never become a professional Staff Officer. Never lose touch with the troops. Remember that you serve the troops and it is the troops who matter. They are the folk who win victories, take care of your men and they will never let you down.

American troops around the globe are the greatest preservers of liberty and peace in the world.

The History brand has long been a supporter of not only our troops but organizations that support our troops.

George W. Bush made the agreement about when American troops would leave Iraq, not Barack Obama.

If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.

It was helpful to have the American troops there in great strength. They knew there'd be consequences if they didn't move back. Now, there has been some removal of the foreign forces.

Our troops are home. It's time for American business to replace the yellow ribbons with help wanted signs.

I think the troops deserve the best equipment on the battlefield, the best training, and American armor if they get in trouble.

A troop surge in Baghdad would put more American troops at risk to address a problem that is not a military problem.

A competent leader can get efficient service from poor troops, while on the contrary an incapable leader can demoralize the best of 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 domestic affairs.

American Green Berets have been on the ground reaching out to some of the factions there. But don't confuse them with combat troops. So we're only talking about airstrikes now. If there are any troops that go in there it will likely be the Italians.

Two things are to blame for our predicament, one a corollary of the other. The first reason is that we did not have enough troops in Samarra. The skill and courage of 150 American soldiers prevented chaos, but was never enough to fully secure a city of 120,000 people or maintain the rule of law [...] Second, because of a lack of troops, American military leaders are forced to make a choice between mission objectives and self-preservation.

Before we put an American in harm's way, tell us why. No one wants to see the region descend into further chaos. There's a lot of concern about getting embroiled in another Vietnam and ... about sending American troops once again to fight someone else's war.

I will never say, 'support the troops.' I don't believe in the validity of that statement. People say, 'I don't support the war, I support the troops' as though you can actually separate the two. You cannot; the troops are a part of the war, they have become the war and there is no valid dissection of the two. Other people shout with glaring eyes that we should give up our politics, give up our political affiliations in favor of 'just supporting the troops.' I wish everything were that easy.

Troops must be fed with ammunition and so on but also with information, with images, with visual intelligence. Without these elements troops cannot perform their duties properly. This is what is meant by the logistics of perception.

There is no military solution to the war in Iraq. Our troops can help suppress the violence, but they cannot solve its root causes. And all the troops in the world won't be able to force Shia, Sunni, and Kurd to sit down at a table, resolve their differences, and forge a lasting peace. In fact, adding more troops will only push this political settlement further and further into the future, as it tells the Iraqis that no matter how much of a mess they make, the American military will always be there to clean it up.

The administration does not agree with those who suggest we should deploy hundreds of thousands of American troops to engage militarily in a ground war in Iraq.

We saw the president of the United States engage American troops in a fourth conflict in a foreign land. This is historic.

We don't have enough American troops inside of Iraq to destroy ISIL any time soon.

American troops have not only occupied Ulster but are arriving in increasing numbers in England.

It's fair to say average Americans think that the average Afghan doesn't want American troops in their country.

American troops on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq. And so she [Hillary Clinton] is saying we're not going to go back down that road, which is what the American people want. They don't want us putting more troops.

The only way that American troops could have stayed in Iraq is to get an agreement from the then-Iraqi government that would have protected our troops, and the Iraqi government would not give that.

I agree with the president [Barack Obama]. I've said myself, we will not send American combat troops back to either Syria or Iraq - that is off the table.

I sent American troops to Iraq to make its people free, not to make them American. Iraqis will write their own history and find their own way.

I don't agree that you need an enormous number of American troops. Saddam's army is down to one-third than it was before, and I think it would be a cakewalk.