If you think this war we are having is for bad intentions... raise your mouse!

It needed to happen

it did not need to happen.

afghanistan needed to happen. I backed that completely. Go after the taliban and bin laden, fine. The blood of 911 completely justified that move.

as I just mentioned in another thread, I never was comfortable with iraq, and its only become worse than id feared. Not an issue of hindsight... I didn't like it from the start, even assuming the wmd's were present. The only 911 ties I saw w iraq was a state that sponsored terrorism and payment of $$ to the families of martyrs. While I found this distasteful and dangerous, to me it never justified the invasion. Told my wife as we were prepping to invade that this did not feel right at all.

you cannot use the human rights issue against iraq either, as we've certainly ignored other gross violations of human rights throughout africa. Even the yugoslav conflict was a mess we simply didn't want to step in.

I have a very good friend from iran. He grew up threre, worked in the oil industry there, and then came to the US to get his PhD. He in now married to a lady from Nebraska, has a daughter who is every bit an American as I am, and teaches future doctors, scientists, and health care providers with a great love and passion for teaching. I expect he'll live here as long as he is allowed (non citizen).

we have discussed political perceptions on many occasions, including the war on terror. I can tell you... I am not wholly comfortable with his views. He believes that there is no "terrorism"... that a sovereign people fight with whatever means they can. If that means a conventional army, fine. If the people cannot fight and resist by that means, than any other means necessary might be all they have... that guerilla warfare is simply another form of self defense.

I don't agree with this thought process. I think, as ridiculous as it sounds, that there should be rules of engagement and moral lines in warfare. But it is not hard to see his perspective, even though I don't agree with it. The palestinian people are among the most impoverished in the world. Easy to see how the violence is perpetuated throughout the generations. I rank my friends views among the "passive supporters"... one who does not actively support the terrorists, but enables their existence through accepting their struggle as simply a means to an end. It is a view that disturbs me.

I understand the people of iran to be intelligent and proud. I think their president is a nutjob. I think he's largely bluffing in his threats. I think his people will suffer for his actions through sanctions and isolation. For as much as iraq mocked the UN inspections, there is speculation that much of the data supporting the wmd's might have been fabricated by hussein's own generals, fearing for their lives and posts if they didn't lie to him about their ability to recover from crippling sactions and isolation. Iran has swung from extreme to moderate before. It will happen again.

I know this is rambling. I just hate to see the blood spilled in hate on 911 mixed in with the muck that is iraq. I have friends who have served in iraq. Accuse me of not supporting the troops and ill be glad to step outside with you. I sweated and worried each day when one friend in particular was gone and served with honor and dignity.

but we are in a terrible mess now. There will be a vacuum if we pull out, and there is violence as we stay. And the people of iraq, many of whom were simply the subjects of a dictorial state, are the ones who will suffer the most.

the whole thing makes me sick.

as I stated in my other post... I will be thrilled the day I go to the election booth and struggle to choose between two great candidates. I have not had that experience yet, and dare say I have yet to vote for any great president during the 5 presidential elections in which I've voted. =P

It happened, the entire Congress backed it, Republician and Democrat,

It is happening, so now you can't just back out and leave the people defenseless. So we are stuck at this point and time. I have never heard any other reasonable choice in what to do.

Of course what about Iran, it is going to have to happen very shortly too over the nuke issue, Don't see hardly any way around it.

Of course what about Iran, it is going to have to happen very shortly too over the nuke issue, Don't see hardly any way around it.

Ummm... hmmm... no way out.

Really?

So a leader with nuclear power and hostile rhetoric should be taken out? Period?

I understand the old days of the cold war are not the same as today's political and volitile environment.

But to say that a harsh talking leader with the potential for nuclear weapons warrants an invasion... man.

I guess id better put away my new testament and focus on the old.

Comments on this post
Cajalat agrees: Are you talking about BUSH? :)
***************

Aw man! You sprung the super secret trap! You weren't supposed to mention that until I did.

I have talked to soldiers who have gone over there, and they tell me it needed to happen, they say the've seen progress... People used to live in fear of walking out on the street, now many cities live with very little fear at all... The Media shwos you what they want you to see... angry middle easteren locals, dead bodys, destroied buildings... fires kids cry... they don't show you cities being built, locals and US troops side by side stacking bricks... they don't show you the boys and girls running to the soldiers and hugging them thanking them for saving there mommy... or just for freeing there contery... Before we removed Sadam he had the power to put anyone in the Gas Chamber child or not, and kill them PAINFULY... now murder is reserfed for sever crims and must be voted on... As one of the strongest nations in the world it is our DUTY TO PROTECT THE WEAK... If you know someone who died over there, or even someone who servered over there, you must have no respect if we pull out now all there lives would be lost in vain... think about what they would want... they would want us to FINISH THE FIGHT and SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!

People have struggled and agonized over war since its first casualties, so it's understandable that you do. You actually raise several issues here that many others also question. Myself, I'm against war period, but like love and hate it seems to be part of the nature of man', just as waras part of the make-up of government. This being the case, I agree with your friend from Iran. 'Rules of engagement' are for the protection of the strongest, the Aristocrats- the Elite- the powerful- the moneyed, if you will.

War's have begun for a couple of reasons i.e. economics' and equality by way of Human Rights; one being a just war, and the other for which there is no justification. Iraq was, and is a 'Just War', and if we go to War with Iran, it too will be a 'Just War'. The American People will not stand for an 'Unjust' War. Sure, there are plenty of people who are selfish enough to condone such an act, but they don't run the country.

There are a couple of 'Strawmen' in your “Ramblings”, as you put it.

1) We will not go to war with Iran because they peruse nuclear capability.
2) There would not be a vacuum in Iraq if we withdrew.
3) We did not invade Iraq because of their weapons of mass destruction.
4) We did not invade because of 9/11

Oh and I'd like to add that we did find prof of WMD (wepons of mass destruction) in Iraq... we found empty bomb shells caple to hold missles that could destry New York in a few shots... and we video tapes 6 trucks (16 wheelers) pulling out of an "abandoned shack the day before it was set to be searched... sounds a little fishy to me... but i agree with Dark Crow.... we didn't go there becasue of WMD's we went there to free its people of a tourturs tyranical dictator... and to attempt to remove the inserganse from the area... and the "bench marks" that are supposed to be met have not acctully been met BUT if we break them down into 2 sections... almost half if not more of the security and military bench marks have been met, meaning Iraq is starting to defend its self and eventluy when its ready we can pull out but if we pull out a second sooner all the dead soldiers would have lost there lives in vain

All I am saying is give Petraeus a chance

Cgirl,

Just out of curiosity, just how long of a chance should we be giving peace?

When is enough enough?

When has the chance at peace run out?

Is it after the 1st UN resolution? The Fifth? The 18th?

Is it after the first time a government refuses to live up to its cease fire agreement? The fifth? The 125th?

Is it after they use WMDs against their own people? Or after they use it on their enemies?

Is it after the first time he fires on your aircraft? The 5th? The 25th? The 125th?

Is it after the first mass killing or political opponents? The fifth? The 25th?

Is it after the first goup of opponents that is "disappeared"? The fifth? The 25th?

Is it after the first case of turture, rape and murder of enemies? The fifth? The 25th?

Is it after the first time the government funds the enemies who have already attacked your country? The fifth? The 25th?

Is it after the first time he hides international terrorists from you? The fifth? The 25th?

When is enough enough? When does it come time to say "Peace has failed, now let's go to war"?

To my way of thinking, 12 years was pleanty of time to give peace a chance. Peace failed miserably. Now let's give war a chance. Historically speaking, war has a better track record of getting rid of dictators and totalitarian regimes than peace.

Elliot

Oh and i'd like to add that we did find prof of WMD (wepons of mass destruction) in Iraq.... we found empty bomb shells caple to hold missles that could destry new york in a few shots.... and we video tapes 6 trucks (16 wheelers) pulling out of an "abandoned shack the day before it was set to be searched... sounds a little fishy to me...

Actually, we found a heck of a lot more than that.

We found 500 TONS of weapons-grade yellowcake uranium. It only takes about 3 pounds of the stuff to make a bomb, so there was enough there to make more than 133,000 nuclear bombs. More if all they were interested in was dirty conventional bombs, and not actual nuclear reactions.

We also found 500 sarin-filled and mustard-filled mortar shells.

David Kay found weapons-grade biological and chemical materials in several labs and in the private homes of prominent Iraqi weapons scientists.

We found mobile laboratories capable of producing weapons grade chemicals that Saddam's people claimed were for "agricultural purposes", several hundred barrels of dual-purpose chemicals that could either be weapons or industrial chemicals... but they were found in weapons storage depots.

What we did not find were large numbers of fully assembled WMDs. We did, however, find that Saddam had the capability to assemble large numbers of WMDs in short order with the equipment he had.

We found documentation in Saddam's own records of the fact that he had WMDs, and that they were being hidden from the inspectors.

Frankly, as far as I am concerned, we got the goods on Saddam. I don't know why Bush never played that fact up, but there is no doubt in my mind that we found a HUGE amount of WMD capability in Iraq, and that Saddam was indeed a WMD threat.

Elliot

Cgirl,

Just out of curiosity, just how long of a chance should we be giving peace?

When is enough enough?

When has the chance at peace run out?

Is it after the 1st UN resolution? The Fifth? The 18th?

Is it after the first time a government refuses to live up to its cease fire agreement? The fifth? The 125th?

Is it after they use WMDs against their own people? Or after they use it on their enemies?

Is it after the first time he fires on your aircraft? The 5th? The 25th? The 125th?

Is it after the first mass killing or political opponents? The fifth? The 25th?

Is it after the first goup of opponents that is "disappeared"? The fifth? The 25th?

Is it after the first case of turture, rape and murder of enemies? The fifth? The 25th?

Is it after the first time the government funds the enemies who have already attacked your country? The fifth? The 25th?

Is it after the first time he hides international terrorists from you? The fifth? The 25th?

When is enough enough? When does it come time to say "Peace has failed, now let's go to war"?

To my way of thinking, 12 years was pleanty of time to give peace a chance. Peace failed miserably. Now let's give war a chance. Historically speaking, war has a better track record of getting rid of dictators and totalitarian regimes than peace.

With these people Elliot, all I can come up with is the idea of peace must be more important than the reality of peace. They WANT peace but aren't willing to do what's sometimes necessary to achieve peace - like extreme violence toward evil genocidal dictators and terrorists that only understand violence. They don't seem to understand we have to speak the same 'language' as the dictators and terrorists in order to reach an 'understanding.'

Hello:

Here is a perfect example of why going into Iraq was a mistake. Because he was WRONG on Iraq, most of the people think he was WRONG in his war on terror. That's a dangerous assessment.

They called it crying wolf when I was a kid. Crying wolf DOESN'T make you safe. It may get you elected, but it doesn't make you safe. Shame on Bush.

excon

Hello:

Here is a perfect example of why going into Iraq was a mistake. Because he was WRONG on Iraq, most of the people think he was WRONG in his war on terror. That's a dangerous assessment.

They called it crying wolf when I was a kid. Crying wolf DOESN'T make you safe. It may get you elected, but it doesn't make you safe. Shame on Bush.

excon
Sunnis revolt against al-Qaida
By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writers
Thu May 31, 6:51 PM ET

BAGHDAD - U.S. troops battled al-Qaida in west Baghdad on Thursday
After Sunni Arab residents challenged the militants and called for
American help to end furious gunfire that kept students from final
Exams and forced people in the neighborhood to huddle indoors.

Iraqis Want Freedom(Thank-you America): Sunni Iraqis Ask for U.S. Help Against al-Qaeda - soc.culture.iraq | Google Groups (http://groups.google.co.zm/group/soc.culture.iraq/browse_thread/thread/1af25f64818ffbaa/3a188735dc37db02)
Ask the Sunnis if it was wrong.

Hello:

Here is a perfect example of why going into Iraq was a mistake. Because he was WRONG on Iraq, most of the people think he was WRONG in his war on terror. That's a dangerous assessment.

They called it crying wolf when I was a kid. Crying wolf DOESN'T make you safe. It may get you elected, but it doesn't make you safe. Shame on Bush.

excon

Excon,

Where, exactly, was Bush wrong?

Was it in his claim of WMDs? I already addressed that in my posts above. 500 TONS of yellowcake uranium constitutes a WMD threat in my book. So does 500+ saring and mustard fiilled mortar shells. And large quantities of "dual use" chemicals that were stored in weapons facilities, not farms. And quantities of weapons-grade biological and chemical materials hidden in the homes of Iraqi weapons-scientists. Sorry, we gotthe goods on Saddam regarding WMDs.

Was it with regard to Saddam's violation of UN Resolutions and the ceasefire agreement? I talked about that too. 18 violated resolutions, thousands of documented incidents of firing on Coalition planes, failure to allow WMD inspections (which, coincidentally, would have allowed us to avoid the entire war if Saddam had really gotten rid of his WMDs), failure to return Kuwaiti POWs and materials to Kuwait, etc.

Was it with regard to Saddams association with terrorists? Sorry, no dice. Saddam's own documents show that he met with al Qaeda's leadership. He was funding the families of suicide bombers. He sheltered the Abu Nidal group. And he even had a terrorist training facility in Salman Pak, fer godsakes.

Was it with regard to Saddams treatment of his own people? Sorry, been there, discussed that too. His human rights violations have been thoroughly documented, and are too long to document here.

So where was Bush wrong?

As far as crying wolf is concerned, sorry but that analogy doesn't play out. What happens if there really is a wolf, and you call for help numerous times and nobody comes? Isn't it incumbent on you to get your shotgun and take care of the wolf yourself?

Elliot

Where, exactly, was Bush wrong?Hello again, El:

This is not rocket science. The war in Iraq is lost. That makes him wrong in my book. Yes, yes, I know - not in yours.

I don't know if he lost it before he went in. I don't know if he lost it because of his war plan, or I don't know if he lost it because of the media. Any of those are possibilities. I know which one you'll choose.

What I know is, he lost the war because he lost (is losing) the support of his own party. That IS happening today. I doubt even you will deny it --- but you've surprised me in the past.

excon

PS> Will they spin it as a victory?? They'll try.

excon,

Define lost?

Coalition troop casualties: approximately 3600.
Enemy fighter casualties: approximately 50,000+ .

Land held by coalition troops: roughly 100%
Land held by enemy fighters: 0%

Percentage of battles won by coalition troops: 100%
Percentage of battles won by enemy fighters: 0%

By what criterion do you define the war in Iraq as "lost"? How do you define lost? This is a question I have been asking for months, and I have yet to find a satisfactory answer.

The best anyone has come up with is the idea that the Iraqis don't want us there, therefore we have lost. Bull$h!t. We don't define who wins a war by whether the country we are occupying really wants us there or not. The Germans and Japanese didn't want us there after WWII. Who cares, we won, we stayed there for 60 years.

And it can't be the fact that al Qaeda isn't there, because they are now, whether they were there before on not. I believe they were, but whether that is true or not, they are now. Ever hear of "Al Qaeda In Iraq"? We keep shooting them, and they keep dying without causing us any significant losses.

So what does "lost" mean regarding Iraq? And if you can't define it, perhaps its because it isn't happening and we haven't lost the war in Iraq, despite the hopes of certain members of the left. The troops certainly don't think they have lost.

Elliot

So what does "lost" mean regarding Iraq? Hello El:

Let me try this again. The loss I'm talking about didn't happen in Iraq. It happened (IS happening) in Washington, and the Republicans in the Senate are doing it.

excon

Hello El:

Let me try this again. The loss I'm talking about didn't happen in Iraq. It happened (IS happening) in Washington, and the Republicans in the Senate are doing it.

excon

By the answer above, ("The loss I'm talking about didn't happen in Iraq") you are basically saying that things are going fine on the ground in Iraq. It is back in Washington that things in the political arena are being defined as a "loss". And I agree. Which brings me back to the point that Congress has no place in the running of wars. That is the President's job as CnC, and the military as... well, as the military.

But all you have done is shifted the location of "where" we are losing. You still haven't defined what "lost" means in the context of the Iraq war. I have defined what winning means, based on the Admin's stated goals. And by those definitions, we are not losing, we are in fact making progress in Iraq.

But you continue to insist that we have lost in Iraq, without explaining what you mean by "lost". Until you define what "lost" means, there is no way to quantify whether it is true or not. So please, provide an explanation of "lost" means with regard to the war in Iraq.

Elliot

Until you define what "lost" means, there is no way to quantify whether it is true or not. So please, provide an explanation of "lost" means with regard to the war in Iraq.Hello again, El:

It's true. I'm unable to define lost satisfactorily to you, any better than you have been able to define victory to me.

How about this? When we're gone and Iraq is an Islamist state, would you consider that to be a loss? I would.

THAT is what IS happening. I understand that you are unwilling to grasp that we are going to withdraw - not because the left wants to - but because the right is going to force Bush to do it.

You and your friends call them minor defections... I don't think so.

excon

Hello again, El:

It's true. I'm unable to define lost satisfactorily to you, any better than you have been able to define victory to me.

How about this? When we're gone and Iraq is an Islamist state, would you consider that to be a loss? I would.

THAT is what IS happening. I understand that you are unwilling to grasp that we are going to withdraw - not because the left wants to - but because the right is going to force Bush to do it.

You and your friends call them minor defections..... I don't think so.

excon
"When we're gone and Iraq is an Islamist state, would you consider that to be a loss? I would"

Therein lies the crux of the matter

How about this? When we're gone and Iraq is an Islamist state, would you consider that to be a loss? I would.

Absolutely. And since that has NOT happened yet, and since that can ONLY happen if we leave too soon, we clearly, by this definition, have not lost. Nor will we, unless Congress force us to lose by "redeploying" our troops out of Iraq.

This is all the more reason to stay in Iraq till the job is done.


THAT is what IS happening. I understand that you are unwilling to grasp that we are going to withdraw - not because the left wants to - but because the right is going to force Bush to do it.

I don't think so. So far, every attempt by Congress to force a pullout has failed. I think they will continue to fail. And barring Bush pulling the troops out, we haven't lost.


You and your friends call them minor defections... I don't think so.

I have never called them minor. I don't see them as minor at all. And come the 2008 election, those Senators will regret it. However, I don't really see it changing the political equation. Even if Congress manages to somehow get a vote to withdraw from Iraq, Bush will veto it, and there aren't enough votes to override the veto. Ergo, Bush cannot (and will not) be forced to pull the troops out of Iraq by either the Democrats or the Republicans.

So... now that we know your definition of lost --- which has been defined by you as withdrawal of the troops and leaving behind an Islamist state --- can you please stop saying that WE HAVE LOST, since by your own admission, the current facts on the ground do not fit your own definition?

And can we agree also that the only way we are going to lose is if Congress makes us lose, so Congress should stay the hell out of trying to run the war?

Elliot

I have never called them minor. I don't see them as minor at all. And come the 2008 election, those Senators will regret it.
Elliot
These aren’t defections, they’re re-deployments. Wait until after the elections. :D

And can we agree also that the only way we are going to lose is if Congress makes us lose, Hello El:

No. Because, in my view, the war was lost before we ever went in.

Remember those three choices I offered earlier: 1) wrong war, 2) bad battle plan and 3), leftist media? My choices are number's 1 and 2. Yours, of course, is number 3.

Therefore, by ordering a withdrawal, congress is simply recognizing the political reality.

excon

PS> Not enough votes to override a veto?? Not now, but I can see it coming... Just you watch. What? 2 or 3 more senators?? Come on, El. They're going to cave on Bush too cause they're fearful for their political future.

The American Civil War was a lost cause going into the election season of 1864. Like Bush has done; Lincoln saw a war effort that was stumbling, so he removed his top generals and brought in Gen. Grant and his" surge plan" . He listened to his General who said
"I propose to fight it out along this line if it takes all summer"... and stuck with him even though public opinion had turned sour on the war. Lincoln's prospects looked bleak for reelection up until Sept. 2 ,1864 when Sherman took Atlanta.

It doesn't matter if Lugar and Warner are covering their political tails . It will not even matter if McCain; seeing his slim chances of getting the nomination dashed; turns on the only issue he is really in agreement with the rest of his party about. The war will not be lost unless the Democrats win and impose defeat .

Yes ,I would've preferred that he had listened to his military earlier instead of his State Dept. A lot of the difficulties in the last few years were the result of a basic difference in philosophies between these two cabinet groups and Bush should've been more assertive in forcing the issue. But that does not mean that early strategies determine outcomes. For more on this see Stephen Hayes new book about VP Cheney . Amazon.com: Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President: Books: Stephen F. Hayes (http://www.amazon.com/Cheney-Americas-Powerful-Controversial-President/dp/0060723467/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-4942225-8760146?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184343644&sr=8-1)


In Iraq, Cheney thought it important to establish Iraqi political legitimacy as soon as possible. Before the war, Pentagon planners had discussed bringing a government-in-waiting to Iraq to run the country after Saddam Hussein had been removed from power. The idea met stiff resistance at the State Department and the CIA, who worried that the Iraqi people would be skeptical of leaders handpicked by the United States, and consisted mainly of Iraqi exiles. Cheney understood their concerns but the idea still held a certain crawl-before-you-walk appeal. A provisional Iraqi government, even an imperfect one, could help convince Iraqis that the U.S. government was serious when it promised to send a liberating force, not an occupying one.

That was view I agreed with then. Unfortunately a CPA was set up under Viceroy Bremer and a year was wasted . That is water under the bridge .It made our task there more difficult but not impossible.
Right now the issue is perception . We have gained the trust of the Iraqis who thought we were in it to be long term occupiers .The troops are kicking al Qaeda out of the only area in the country that they could ever find sanctuary . The populace has proven their desire for participatory governance . The brutality of the insurgents has shot them in the foot. The people prefer the American tribe to the jihadists .

But the other perception being reinforced by our Legislative Branch is that we are paper tigers not up to the fight. If they had kept at least the good sense to adopt the adage that politics ends at the shore then the effort would be much easier for out troops.

No. Because, in my view, the war was lost before we ever went in.

Well, now. THat differs from your stated definition of lost, doesn't it. So are you saying that you STILL haven't given me a definition of "lost"?


Remember those three choices I offered earlier: 1) wrong war, 2) bad battle plan and 3), leftist media? My choices are number's 1 and 2. Yours, of course, is number 3.

And the fact that the military plan and the nature of military operations have changed doesn't mean anything to you? Even if you believe that the original op plan was wrong, we are no longer using the original op plan. Which means that number 2 no longer applies. So at worst, we are dealing with #1.

Problem with that argument is, even if it was once the "wrong war" it no longer is. The terrorists are there now. So right now it is the right war, regardless of what it may have been in the beginning, and you and I can disagree over whether in 2003 it was the right war or not at some other date. Right now, it is the right war because the terrorists are there now.


Therefore, by ordering a withdrawal, congress is simply recognizing the political reality.

Again, this doesn't jive with your statement that the war is being lost by Congress. Either they are doing the right thing and "simply recognizing the political reality" or they are doing the wrong thing and losing the war. Which is it?


PS> Not enough votes to override a veto?? Not now, but I can see it coming... Just you watch. What? 2 or 3 more senators?? Come on, El. They're going to cave on Bush too cause they're fearful for their political future.

A few will, but not enough to get the 2/3 necessary for a veto override. Congress knows that. The Dems know it, and it is frustrating the hell out of them. That's why they want to keep the issue in the forefront by calling for votes they know they can't win over and over. It allows them to make political hay out of blaming Bush. "We did everything we can... its all Bush's fault." They have failed in their politically driven agenda to end the war, so all they have left is the old "blame Bush" tactic.

Elliot

Considering their country's history and then factor in the isolated scale of success, the President's strategy has not worked. I'd dearly love for the Iraqi gov't to stand on their own considering Iraq is not going to be become a U.S. territory nor was that ever the goal. The goal, not to use the excuse of the WMD sideshow as often suggested, was accomplished by removing the tyrant culprit Hussein from power. Now it's time for closure and start the removal of our troops. The people of Iraq are going to have to want this for themselves. Again... we are not colonizing Iraq anytime soon and we don't need another drawn out Vietnam-like affair.



Bobby

the problem is we are trying to apply logic to an illogical situation.

a report comes out saying al qaeda is gaining strength similar to 911 and both the dems and the gop say "SEE!?! SEE?!? WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!"

of course the dems mean the iraq war has failed to squash the threat that took us to war first and the gop means that this threat is here to stay and requires thicker skin and the will to fight.

and the problem is its both and neither. Iraq was stupid from the get go, but here we are. I'm an independent who voted for bush 2x, and nearly gagged the second time. Can the dems get any more lame that they can't beat a guy who is so lousy? Blech.

off track. Point was it doesn't matter whether we occupy the majority of iraq or our death rate is substantially lower than the enemy. We are in a place where there is really no "winning"... absent wiping all who follow al qaeda and the like off the map completely and wiping it from memory. Good luck with that.

id like our troops withdrawn. Can't see it happening responsibly soon. Id like to say iraq is a better place today than before. Can't say that's true. Tribal warfare can cut down all the good deeds done in a breath. So in the end more innocents will die one way or the other. Our hands, husseins hands (at least before the hanging), al qaeda, blah, blah, blah...

the problem is, again, its just an illogical situation (the hatred that fosters the terror) and we can sit here all we want and argue about the most logical situation. There just isn't one.

I'm not saying its hopeless so give up or that there aren't better paths than others... but we are always going to be stumped a bit my why the hell we need to be doing all of this in the first place. Just a handful of senseless and stupid people can ruin the party.

What about the fact that the terrorists themselves have said that their only chance to complete their goal of creating a Muslim world is to win in Iraq? They need a victory in Iraq in order to become able to recruit new members and gain enough power to continue the fight in the rest of the world. THEY have said that, not us.

So why in the world would anyone in their right minds literally hand the enemy the victory they need in order to continue their war against us? Why would anyone consider a pullout that the enemy will claim as a victory, and will use against us? If only to keep that from happening, we have to stay in Iraq.

And just out of curiousity... how long is a war supposed to take?

I have never heard any military official claim that the war in Iraq would be a short war, and that if we don't "succeed" (however, we define success) within a certain time, it means we have failed and we should pull out. War cannot be placed on a set timetable. You cannot say, we'll win by next week, or else we'll pull out. Yet that is what the people advocating a pullout from Iraq are talking about. War takes as long as it takes.

The troops surge only came to full strength three weeks ago. How can anyone in their right mind claim that we have failed when we've only been at full strength for three weeks... especially given the fact that the number of attacks by the enemy is significantly down, a number of terrorist leaders have been captured and are talking to our intelligence people, several of the toughest neighborhoods with the most fighting are now pacified, and our losses have been so minimal? Give the plan a chance to work. Give the troops a chance to do their jobs.

Anything less is handing the enemy a victory they haven't earned, and a booste in strength that they will use against us.

Elliot