Iraqi leader insists on 2011 deadline for U.S. troop pullout

If we leave what will happen? Toatl carnage!!! How dumb and ungratefull are the iraqi gov. We are needed to rid the country of terrorism, we sure won`t leave until the job is done. We do not cut and run.

Petreus, Go home! Know when you're not wanted!

LIBERTAS- Maybe some in the Iraqi Gov want us to leave, but the citizans are praying we stay. They know if we leave, they will be living in a fundamentalist state, with no rights for women and a stoneage justice system.

BoldWarVeteren;

Good call! The Us must stay in Iraq, to ensure not only that democracy continues in Iraq, but as a stabilising force in the region.

The US will leave when we deem the situation safe. Leaving an unsafe state would be a waste of years of work rebuilding the country.

Patriotic Americans know this is the way to go.

And that`s a wrap.

Someone needs to go in and liberate that country from the government! They need a government that wants the US to stay there indefinitely. Anyone up for it? Bueller???

BoldWarVeteran,

Bush has always said that we will leave when the Iraqis ask us to leave.

They're asking.

Maybe it's not the Iraqis who are dumb.

SezWho2- during a conflict things change, cirumstances on the ground change, and changes of policy are made to adjust.

With terorists pouring into Iraq, we cannot leave the country to the mercy of these maniacs.

We will leave when you decide Iraq is secure, safe from invasion, and able to support itself, and NOT before.

Should say" we will leave when we decide Iraq is ...."

Boldwarveteran - "If we leave what will happen? Toatl carnage!!!"

You've got near total carnage now in the US economy because America stayed.

"How dumb and ungratefull are the iraqi gov. "

Not really. They just want control of what is rightfully theirs.

The only 'dumb and ungrateful' ones around here are the Americans who cannot understand the notion of sovereignity.

"We are needed to rid the country of terrorism,"

But right now, it's more important to head off another US recession, which has been caused in no small part by the huge sums invested in the war.

"We sure won`t leave until the job is done. We do not cut and run."

Heh, you will, and George W. Bush has just signed on the dotted line to an agreement that doesn't state a 'time horizon' like he wanted; it states a deadline to get out of Iraq, something which he has long opposed until this HUGE backflip by the president.

Sorry bud, but contrary to your desires, America just won on this one :-)

$2-3 trillion will be far better spent in America for Americans, not in Iraq for Iraqis.

Why is that so difficuly for the war supporters to understand?

The george bush and John McCain war supporters can only see war. They see no purpose in peace, only in continued war and destruction.

They would defy the right and privleges of this free nation they taut and force themselves on Iraq. They would become the new dictators and stay unwelcomed. They just said that above. < :-)

BoldWar - Bush is going back on his word - again.

"With terorists pouring into Iraq, we cannot leave the country to the mercy of these maniacs."

Best bet is to go where the terrorist LEADERS are - in Afghanistan. Not so bold now, are ya? Well, President of the United States Barack Obama IS. He has the balls to fight this war correctly, unlike those in power now. That's why Obama's gonna win the election in November.

Heh, George W. Bush's flip flop - and this is a big one - is actually closer to Obama's 16-month pullout plan.

Ladies and Gents, by signing onto this agreement, Bush's position is moving closer to that of Obama's and moving further away from that of McCain.

Yep, Bush's wise new (albeit a flip flop) decision is isolating the John McCain on the Iraq issue.

Ouch - that must sting the failure-embracing war supporters!

Now, it seems the only people who want America to remain in Iraq now are John McCain, the terrorists and anti-American war supporters LOL!!

Note - Condi Rice was still calling this solid Dec 2011 deadline a 'time horizon' only a few days ago - just goes to show how deep the self-delusion is in the White House :-)

BoldWarVeternan - "Should say" we will leave when we decide Iraq is ...."

But, but, but, that is implying that you don't think Iraq is a sovereign nation.

But George W. Bush has declared that Iraq IS a sovereign nation.

Why do you disagree with George W. Bush ??

BoldWarVeteran - "With terorists pouring into Iraq, we cannot leave the country to the mercy of these maniacs."

But it's a not your country and it's not America's problem.

America's got a far bigger problem at home with the tanking economy and nearly $10 trillion in debt, a lot of it caused by this Iraqi invasion gig which has been a total waste of time.

This is a good move in the right direction, but it will still cost another $420 - 840 BILLION in money America doesn't have to get the country to the end of 2011.

Where is money like that going to come from?

Do the war supporters have any idea? I don't.

This great news! Apparently, the Iraqis are on the verge of being able to handle their security all on their own! The surge has worked! Petraeus and Bush were right!

Heh, Sarge, you forgot the bit about the $2-3 trillion ultimate cost of this botched edventure.

Oh, you also forgot the bits about the tanking US economy, the fact that Bush has frozen all spending on non-defence domestic programs, the slight problem of the Sub Prime Crisis, the potential extremely costly bailout of Freddie and Fannie Mae, the massive and growing long-term healthcare costs of wounded vets,......all of which would either not exist or be more likely to be funded had your country not gone into Iraq in the first place.

These may seem unrelated to the topic at hand, but tehy are directly related, as a length of time before the eventual withdrawl will suck even more money out of all of the items in the list above - to the further detriment of Americans everywhere.

I find it interesting how war supporters look at the supposed success of the Surge and cheer on about that for a while, while COMPLETELY IGNORING the chaos unfolding at home.

This leads to the question - has it all been worth it?

With a tanking US economy that will put the brakes on the entire global economy, I'd have to say a resourding 'No'.

Wouldn't it be great if America had a president who wasn't the Self- Declared Saviour of Iraq (like Bush is and McCain so desperately wants to become), but realized that his main job was to actually be the President of America and not Iraq??

Wow, that's a stretch but it's going to be President Obama :-)

BoldWarVeteran,

Yes, some things change and some things don't.

Something that has not changed is that Iraq is still a sovereign country and not a US protectorate.

Something else is that the Iraqis have moved from wanting our assistance to wanting us around to wanting us out. Our UN mandate will expire as of the end of this year and unless the Iraqis ask for an extension on Iraqi terms it will not be renewed.

Whether to stay in Iraq or not is not our decision.

Bill,

The Us must stay in Iraq, to ensure not only that democracy continues in Iraq, but as a stabilising force in the region.

As long as Iraq remains unable to tell the US when to leave, they ain't got democracy.

The US must dictate when the correct time is to leave and the liberation is complete.

The Iraqi people have a democratic government, however that government is immature and does not have the abilities to make the correct decisions regarding security matters.

The US must remain in Iraq, until all threats are eliminated. 100 years is a possibilty, as we may have to remain as a policeman in the Mid East, similar to our mission in Japan.

Sushi: But it's a not your country and it's not America's problem.

No irony at all considering Sushi's hyper obsession with the US, which is not his country or his problem.

If they want troops out by 2011, then sign the agreement. I don't see any problem with it at all. The sooner the better, in fact, as long as the conditions exist that will allow it. If the conditions don't exist I have a feeling the Iraqi government will be more than happy to renegotiate.

BoldWarVeteran and Superlib seem extremely capable of stating bold deadlines and time frames for their country to remain in Iraq - impressive stuff - however they appear completely incapable of stating where the money will come to fund these adventures.

What I'm saying is that BoldWarVeteran and Superlib and a whole long list of war supporters I have been observing over the years seem to all have one thing in common - they see the 'Big Picture', but they have no idea whatsoever about the nuts and bolts behind a sustainable, workable solution to get to the end goal.

It's kind of like seeing a beautiful picture of a Porshe, and convincing yourself you will own it when you have no savings and no job.

To be honest, it's a very childish thinking process, no insult intended.

This definite plan for a pullout is a good thing in my book - it sets a deadline for a withdrawl, much to the horror of the war supporters who think Iraq is actually their and America's business, and it will hopefully put an evential stop to the financial heamorraging (sp?) that this disaster of a war has started.

BoldWarVeteran - "The US must remain in Iraq, until all threats are eliminated. 100 years is a possibilty, as we may have to remain as a policeman in the Mid East, similar to our mission in Japan."

I would say you just shredded any remaining credibilty you ever believed you had with that one sentence. :-)

As I pointed out before - BoldWarVeteran (and others) -

1/ Believe in the Big Picture - "The US must remain in Iraq, until all threats are eliminated."

however 2/ they are completely incapable of explaining to us - even in simple terms - how this goal will be accomplished.

Until or unless they can, everything in their minds is nothing but wishful thinking.

To make it even worse, Republicans seems to have this vague, far-away, genie-in-a-bottle notion of "victory," but ask them to define it realistically and all you will get is a blank stare.

But they will, of course, mention "listening to Generals," "situation on the ground," "until the terrorists are defeated," and a whole lot of other sound bites, but nothing specific, nothing concrete, nothing believable.

The Dems, on the other hand, have a plan - that now the Iraqi PM AND Bush appear to support - and that is to exit Iraq by a fixed date.

This leaves John McCain looking like a dying fish flapping its tail on the mud after the tide has gone out.

It looks, for all intents and purposes, that the strategy has left John McCain behind :-)

Sushi - "botched adventure"

How can it be botched if the situation has improved so much that Iraqis are confident enough to demand the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops by 2011? Are you saying they're wrong?

"tanking US economy"

Heh, it's still the No.1 economy in the world.

Another good thing about a defintey withdrawl date is that it will stop the US having to babysit Iraqi soldiers and force the local lads and their leaders to get serious about running and securing their country.

SushiSake3,

With my knowledge of warfare and after listening to my contacts, i know we must stay in Iraq.

Should we leave before the job is done, we will be looking at a possible WWIII starting in the region. Should we leave it is considered highly probable (by military experts), that Iran will attcak Israel with nuclear weapons, the world would have the most destructive war ever.

The Iraqi government will have to be made aware of these facts. Of course they want to be free to police their own country, but only when the situation is right, as dictated by the US.

Sarge - "- "botched adventure"

I'd say it's a "botched adventure" because while you may have won the battle, you lost the war.

And if you've lost the war, there's no real point winning the battle.

You lost the war because there's no more terrorists than ever that hate you and your kind, Afghanistan is turning to custard, there's still no stable Govt. in Iraq, when the US pull out there is very likely to be a massive power struggle turning everything the US ever did to waste, and to cap it all off, by the time US forces have completely withdrawn, your nation will have wasted possibly close on $3 trillion of borrowed money (not to mention decades more of Vet healthcare costs) for what.....so that you can create even more enemies of America?

By almost every measure, America has and will continue to suffer for this collossal mistake made by Bush and co. to invade a country that was never a threat.

But at least the "surge" seems to have worked - yay! :-)

BoldWarVeteran, why do you continue to prove me right?

You again stated a 'Big picture' but again provided no mechanism for making it work.

Is that because you simply don't know?

SushiSake3,

I made clear the big picture. The US must stay to ensure the region does not turn into anarchy. Leaving too soon, would result in Iraqi`s living in fear in a disjointed country, fighting civil war amongst itself.

That is why we must stay.

I'm sorry Sushi but you will not have your fantasy of civil war in Iraq. It's time for you to give up on that one and move on.

BoldWarVeteran - "I made clear the big picture."

you did, Thanks.

What you didn't do was prevode any realist way, method or mechanism for how you think America is going to get there.

"That is why we must stay."

Until.....when?

This year, next year, next decade, next century?

Superlib - "I'm sorry Sushi but you will not have your fantasy of civil war in Iraq."

Sorry, it no more a fantasy of mine that it is for you.

The only reason civil war is possible in Iraq is because of the unthinking support of people like you.

Your weak attempt at trying to fob the blame off on someone who has never supported this war from the outset is real low.

SushiSake3,

If it takes 100 years to remodel the region then so be it. When Americab style democracy flourishes in the MIddle East, we will have succeded.

If we follow the prudent spending plans of the current administration, we can easily afford to amintain a large amount of troop in the region for a s long as we wish.

The only reason civil war is possible in Iraq is because of the unthinking support of people like you.

You know, if you really did care about the Iraqi people, as you claim to, you might want to examine all of what is implied in what you have written.

And Superlib, I see you made no attempt whatsoever to refute my claim that you (& other war supporters) have no idea whatsoever about the nuts and bolts behind a sustainable, workable solution to get to the end goal.

Is that because you simply don't know?

That's my guess.

I very much doubt John McCain knows either, and considering the US is burning through $15-30 billion a month, that's a pretty disturbing thought.

So, considering McCain wants to stay in Iraq till whenever and Obama and the Democrats want out with a fixed timeline, who do you think has a workable plan?

How much longer do you think US forces should spend babysitting Iraqis?

And, considering, as I mentioned before, forcast expenditures for a continued US presence in Iraq up to that 2011 deadline for a U.S. troop pullout could well hit $840 BILLION, not to mention the $200 BILLION the US Govt. is currently paying per annum on debt servicing costs, can you please tell me where money like that is going to come from?

Sarge and BoldWarVeteran, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this question too.

Big pictures are all cute and pretty but you need a specific plan for victory, and at the moment, I don't think any of you three posters have anything bar wishful thoughts.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

Immunity for the troops is a disgace in light of some of the attrocities been committed over there. I'm not surprised the Iraqi's are refusing it.

Once again Bush has failed to keep his word - the Iraqi's are giving the US a golden chance to cut and run, but we see the real occupation monster rear its' ugly head and points to the fact that the neocon plan didn't involve leaving...

BoldWarVeteran - "If it takes 100 years to remodel the region then so be it. When Americab style democracy flourishes in the MIddle East, we will have succeded."

Do you honestly think America has a hope in heck of achieving that considering it is getting whipped and appealing for help from other countries in Afghanistan, now planning to withdraw from Iraq?

Your dreams are just that - dreams.

"If we follow the prudent spending plans of the current administration, we can easily afford to amintain a large amount of troop in the region for a s long as we wish."

LOL! Can you please tell me how much US debt has increased under the GWB administration?

Ok, I'll save you the effort.

When GWB took over from Clinton in 1990, the US was running surpluses.

Under GWB, US government debt has exploded annd rocketed from $4 trillion to nearly $10 trillion now.

Do you really that reflects "prudent spending plans"? :-) Hmm...you have still completely failed to provide any specific workable plans, strategies for how America is going to continue to fund the Iraq war.

It is now very, very clear that you - like Superlib, just don't have any idea at all.

Thanks very much for settling my mind on that point.

Heh, the walls of failure are closing in on the war supporters.....

The crows are coming back to roost, and thanks to a daily belting of Reality, they just cannot support their lies or fantasies any longer.

That's funny :-)

Heh, the walls of failure are closing in on the war supporters.....

You've been coming here with that one for 5 years.

Quagmire!, Vietnam 2!, cut n run!, Bush will lose in 04, Kerry will pull out troops!, civil war any day now!, Mookie's gonna get ya!, yadda yadda yadda.

I guess you really wish you had a vote.

Sushi: who do you think has a workable plan?

Please tell us your workable plan.

Just kidding.... ;)

Sushi: Boy, this whole thing makes really makes their heads spin, eh? I mean, they absolutely ADORE GWB, and yet GWB is now for withdrawing the troops, so they are either with him or against him (head explosion sound #1). Also, they have claimed up and down that Iraq is now a free and democratic country, yet some on here say they are going to stay in Iraq (them meaning, of course, the troops -- since those posting would never dare put themselves in danger from their armchairs!) until the 'job is done', meaning essentially that it is not a democratic country at all, and the government in Iraq -- democratically voted, they say -- has no say at all. As the Dems have wanted all along, Iraq has mirrors their desire for a troop withdrawal... in fact, DEMANDS it! Exploding heads part 3 comes in with their support of John McCain, simply as a Republican... they HAVE to stand behind his 'let's stay 100 years if we NEED to!' comment, which even HE can't flip-flop on, but they have to try and respect the wishes of the Iraqi government, and/or remain in bush's lap and follow his wish for withdrawal.

Wow... quite the conundrum! It's no wonder they will do practically anything to shift the blame and avoid answering any questions posted to them. What's more, sushi, I predict this is going to be their 'excuse' for the loss of the war in general (already lost). "Well, guffaw don't blame me!! We were winning, I tell you, WINNING! But then that damn commie government in Iraq demanded we withdraw, and all was lost!" (convenient set up for what's already done).

What's more, sushi, I predict this is going to be their 'excuse' for the loss of the war in general (already lost).

If America has lost in Iraq who has won? Because I'm guessing 'the winner' gets the 79 billion dollar surplus Iraq has racked up over the last year. Not bad for a country that the Democrats wrote off a year ago. Not bad for a country that Joe Biden was saying we need to partition into three.

Another easy question for you smith - who is the lucky party?

Gonna run, again?

undecided-kun, The "winner" gets the 79 billion surplus that Iraq accumulated? Maybe?

WOOOHOOO!!!

And to think it only cost us 200 billion a year to possibly get to that 79 billion.

It's people like you that keep the pull tab industry flush.

Taka

undecided: "Another easy question for you smith - who is the lucky party? Gonna run, again?"

Nah, I'll refrain this time. Too much negative politics, much like you are attempting to pull here, and VERY much like your past past past past handle used to do all the time (ie. point out where people are from, etc.).

Anyway, whoopideedooo!!! You think by 'winning' in Iraq you're going to STEAL the surplus they've made in the last year (while the pumps stay hi in the US, much to the chagrin of the taxpayers fronting the war)? And even if you do, which you won't, will that even put a dent in the more than 1 trillion you've spent on the debacle?

"The US must dictate ..." Dictate? DICTATE?! Not while I live and breathe. America will never know a "dictator" such as so many Republicans seem to want. Too many of my colleagues have died ensuring no dictator will ever run the US for us to succumb to one, now or ever.

"The surge has worked! Petraeus and Bush were right!" Great! So we can leave! We've won in Iraq! No need to stay! All Bush has to do now is get us out of Iraq and into Afghanistan so we can start winning the war. Now that the Battle of Iraq has concluded, we can now surge into the central front and score decisive victory. I suggest the surge consist of about 150,000 more US troops moving into the central front.

After all, Sarge/BoldWar, you DO want America to win the war, don't you? Thank you for your support.

According to a widely circulated article by Joseph Stiglitz that appeared earlier this month:

A new report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office shows that Iraqi oil revenues will reach as high as $85 billion this year, resulting in a budget surplus of as much as $50 billion. But despite all the money that is pouring in, Iraq is not taking responsibility for its own reconstruction.

Instead, the U.S. military is footing the reconstruction bill. Over the last two years, while Iraq has earned nearly $100 billion in oil revenues (and spent just $2 billion on capital investments such as roads, water and electricity), U.S. taxpayers have plowed $48 billion into reconstruction activities in Iraq...

While some might argue the US owes the Iraqis, in fact the only road sustainable stability lies with the Iraqis taking "ownership" of their country by footing the bills to rebuild it. (Th supreme irony in having to explain this logic to Republicans has not eluded me.) Provide them with the incentive to make things work, it's that simple.

Betzee,

Instead, the U.S. military is footing the reconstruction bill. Over the last two years, while Iraq has earned nearly $100 billion in oil revenues (and spent just $2 billion on capital investments such as roads, water and electricity), U.S. taxpayers have plowed $48 billion into reconstruction activities in Iraq...

I can understand the argument that the U.S. owes the Iraqis too, but I have to wonder, do you think the Iraqis have received $48 bill worth of services or do you think that the no-bid contractors are doing shoddy work and lining their pockets in the process?

Never mind answering, I know that you are smart enough to know the answer. ;-)

Taka

100 billion in revenues?

I stand corrected. 15 billion more than I thought.

Thanks, betzee.

The war supporters are willing to tell the Iraqi people, we'll stay as long as we want to.

Now the Iraqi people are telling the US that they want us out of their country. They want the US war machine out of Iraq. They are so serious that the Iraqis are even giving us a deadline to get out.

With a surplus that exceeds $80Billion for oil, made possible by the US, they will/can rebuild their own country. They don't want the US there, then Iraq can spend their own money.

Be ready to bring the troops home. Do we have jobs available to rehire all the troops that have been fighting this war? We better start preparing to take care of our own. < :-)

I stand corrected. 15 billion more than I thought.

And therefore merely a 100 billion dollar net loss.

Man, you are on a roll!

Taka

I can understand the argument that the U.S. owes the Iraqis too, but I have to wonder, do you think the Iraqis have received $48 bill worth of services or do you think that the no-bid contractors are doing shoddy work and lining their pockets in the process?

If you're footing the bill, you will hold the contractor responsible for shoddy work. Plus, as a member of the community he has an incentive to make it work.

Taka,

The no-bid contracting system was a porkfest for those who got the contracts. Like many such privatization efforts, it degenerated into crony capitalism. Iraq has not become a free-market paradise either, most of the job growth has occurred in the public sector.

Betzee - "Provide them with the incentive to make things work, it's that simple."

You mean like get the U.S. out? That would be a pretty big incentive.

The only big stick in the works is that the Republican war supporters seem to want to stay on even though they claim the "surge" has resulted in victory, and the free, deomcratic society they claim the U.S. has created in Iraq still actually "needs" to be dictated to by America.

Give me a week or two and I might actually come to understand that... :-)

(Honestly, it's logic like this that underlines just how much the war supporters have lost the plot on this one..... I just wish people weren't being killed while the war supporters try to figure themselves out.)

Taka, ha ha, you're talking elementary school math, but you're still busting undecided's head! :-)

Betzee, O.K. I assume you are assuming Sen. Obama will be our next president then. I don't see bush or Sen. McCain allowing the Iraqis to decide how any money the U.S. owes them would be spent. Therefore, unless Obama wins, we're back to overpaying for shoddy work being done in Iraq by American no-bid contractors. And to think some people thought that "quagmire" no longer had any practical application in Iraq!

Taka

Some people cannot understand why the US must insist to stay in Iraq, and at the same time Iraq is a democracy.

We are in control of security in Iraq. The Iraqi government is like an immature child, it needs to be guided and taught waht is best fot it.

We shall show Iraq, that our presence is needed to ensure the country continues to prosper in peace.

There you are Liberals, as concise as i can make it.

Confederate2008 - So are you advocating telling Iraq to shut-up and staying in Iraq anyway? < :-)

Iraq...we broke it, we got to fix it.

It's that simple.

adaydream; we will be a bit more tactfull than that. They have to be lectured and educated into why our presence must continue.

I pray that the Iraqis can see through the george bush mentality and sends us home.

I think Barack will win the election and we'll be pulling out troops in a structured and thoughtful manner anyway.

Iraq wants us out. I want us out. < :-)

Confederate2008 - "The Iraqi government is like an immature child, it needs to be guided and taught waht is best fot it."

Heh, just like Republican war supporters. :-)

Your plan, as pointed out by Taka, would only lose $100 billion.

Have you got any more bright ideas?

I know, how about America stays in Iraq for 100 years, and - no wait! I've got a better plan - a Master Plan: Stay in Iraq for 100 years without a strategy! or any plan to pay for it!

Heck, I really showed my Republican Strategy Geekness there. :-)

Wha? - what's that you say? Are you saying my Master Plan is exactly the same as John McCain's strategy???

No, that can't be true; I'm a Global Liberal...... :-) LOL!!

Taka, You're right, Congress has already cut the no-bid contracts. Remember Paul Wolfowitz telling us, "This is a country that can pay for its own reconstruction, and relatively fast." That changed over the summer of 2003 when the GWB administration decided Uncle Sam should underwrite the reconstruction. Ostensibly this was done to undercut the view the US was there for the oil which was seen as motivating the insurgency. Many Republicans, such as Lindsey Graham, were not happy, after all we'd extended loans to the Saigon government that Hanoi ultimately assumed responsibility for as a condition of normalization of relations.

The Iraqi government is like an immature child, it needs to be guided and taught what is best for it. There you are Liberals, as concise as i can make it.

Hmmm Confederacy, yes I've heard that before: "Vietnam is like a child that needs time and protection to develop. It's underdeveloped." General William Westmoreland, quoted in Hearts and Minds.

Sailwind - "Iraq...we broke it, we got to fix it. It's that simple."

That's very noble, but the Iraq government doesn't want you in their country much longer.

Are you also denying Iraq is a sovereign nation as your own President has claimed?

And another question - where's the money going to come from?

I think I'll go to bed now because I know I'm not going to get a credible answer from any war supporters to that question...

SushiSake3; The war on terror could last for decades, Bush said that at the beginning. We must be prepared to sacrifice financially and in lives, to ensure the Middle East reforms and begins acting like 21st century nations. Iraq will see the reason for us staying, and i am sure will reflect on us staying to be the correct decision.

Confederated - "They have to be lectured and educated into why our presence must continue."

Seems like the Iraqi government has already lectured and educated US government officials into why the U.S. presence must end.

GWB has signed on the dotted line and approved the plan to get out.

So, what are you talking about here?

The strategy has left you and John McCain behind...sorry, time for you to get another 'stawategy' ;-).

Confederate2008 - "SushiSake3; The war on terror could last for decades, Bush said that at the beginning. We must be prepared to sacrifice financially and in lives, to ensure the Middle East reforms and begins acting like 21st century nations. Iraq will see the reason for us staying, and i am sure will reflect on us staying to be the correct decision."

Nothing But Fantasy (sounds like something out of a speech by someone who has never fought and hasn't been anywhere near a war zone and never will)........... :-)

sailwind - We didn't break Iraq, we liberated it. Iraq was broken a long time ago by good ol' Saddam.

The bush administration thought we'd be in control of this new fledgling country for decades, maybe centuries and we'd be using the Iraqi profits to rebuild the country.

Iraq wants us out. We should help the Iraqis to rebuild Iraq, the country that we virtually destroyed, with the funds that they are receiving from their own profits.

So we can accomplished both things.

We get the troops out. We give control of the country back to the Iraqi people.

And we make the resourses to rebuild Irq where they want our help. Hell the Iraqis may want to use Iraq and Middleeastern contractors.

Let's prepare to wave our hands good-bye. < :-)

SushiSake3; We have a new guy coming into power soon, he can overrule Bush`s decision, and i have a firm belief that he will. Seems like a lot of US citizans need re-eduction into what is correct in this world.

I predict 2011 will pass, and our troops shall remain, in considerable numbers.

We must be prepared to sacrifice financially and in lives, to ensure the Middle East reforms and begins acting like 21st century nations.

All our post-Cold War efforts to do that have produced extremely meager results. Bill Clinton sold trade as a means to remake the world (more like us). Yet NAFTA did not produce the desired changes in Mexico nor has China's entry into the WTO produced any discernible change in its political system.

Force has proved no better, only more expensive. We can't keep stuffing the House of Saud's pockets with ever-expanding payments for their oil and expect much change.

Sarge - "We didn't break Iraq, we liberated it. Iraq was broken a long time ago by good ol' Saddam."

You know that is flat wrong. Iraq's infrastructure is worse off now than it was under Saddam. Baghdad citizens had more hours of power each day under Saddam than they do now.

And cleaner water. And schools without bomb or bullet holes.

Thanks. :-)

sailwind - We didn't break Iraq, we liberated it. Iraq was broken a long time ago by good ol' Saddam.

Sarge

We broke it, we invaded Iraq. Iraq was held together by a brutal dictator but put aside the morality of getting rid of that jerk and except our responsibilty for what we really did.

We broke Iraq and we broke the country without a clue as to do with it after we broke it. We are just now getting to a point after our reality check and Bush's crappy handling of this in the first place, that we needed more damn troops from the start and had to 'surge' after the fact that Iraq is now able to tell us thanks we'll take it from here.

I stand by my first post...We broke it, We have to fix it.

SushiSake3; I am not in disguise. I believe kids should be taught the American way, and why we must support our military and our president.

KIds seem to be fed with anti US rhetoric, and no longer love their country.

The US people must be educated into why our long term presence in Iraq is desperatley needed.

WWe broke it, we invaded Iraq. Iraq was held together by a brutal dictator but put aside the morality of getting rid of that jerk and except our responsibilty for what we really did."

According to the NY Times January 8th 2008, "you wanna make an omelette... you gotta break some eggs !"

Sailwind - "We broke Iraq and we broke the country without a clue as to do with it after we broke it. We are just now getting to a point after our reality check and Bush's crappy handling of this in the first place, that we needed more damn troops from the start and had to 'surge' after the fact that Iraq is now able to tell us thanks we'll take it from here."

Heck, I agree with all of that.

Thanks for educating Sarge. :-)

sailwind,

It's not that simple although it's good of you to acknowledge that we did break Iraq. However, we don't have to fix it--especially if we cannot.

If we can fix Iraq, fine. At present, however, we are obsessed with the notion that there is only one way to fix it and that's not so fine. It's time, perhaps to get out of the way and let the Iraqi mechanics get to work.

But again, that's the real risk, isn't it. What happens if we withdraw and the Iraqis establish stability on their own? That is a risk we seem unwilling to take.

Confederate2008 - "I believe kids should be taught the American way, and why we must support our military and our president."

But, by signing this agreement for US to retreat by 2011, your president doesn't support you.

If you are so certain that you "must support our military and our president" then why don't you lead by example and support his desire to withdraw all American forces from Iraq??

Really Confederate2008, if you think you must support our military and our President but you don't support the President's plan to retreat from Iraq, then it clearly means you don't even believe your own words.

:-)

sailwind - I repeat, ( because it's true and it needs to be said again, apparently ) we didn't break Iraq, we liberated it. When you say we broke Iraq, you're dissing our troops over there. Our troops deposed a brutal dictator and then fought all these wacko extremists who decided to make Iraq the focal point in their war against civilization.

"we needed more damn troops from the start"

We had enough U.S. troops there. Other countries should have contributed more troops - why should it be 95% us?

SushiSake3- President Bush is just stalling for time. If it looks like he is squabbling with the Iraqi Govt, it may harm McCains bid.

Once McCain has been elected, a different message shall be given to the Iraqi`s.

WE will be in Iraq 2011, we must be there, we cannot allow anoth Saddam, who may threaten the homeland.

It's pretty clear from today's thread that Republican war supporters seem to have a vague idea that they want "victory" (whatever they define it to be this week), but they have no idea whatsoever how it is going to be achieved, let alone funded.

And, on top of that, some Republican war supporters think they should support the president while at exactly the same time they loudly disagree with him, and then to cap off the facial nature of their thinking, they claim victory has been achieved (because the "surge" has "worked") and yet see no reason at all to leave, and then claim Iraq is a "sovereign nation" while bellowing that Iraqi "needs" to be dicatated to by America.

Republican Logic (c) - someone needs to patent it and soon :-)

Sarge, sorry mate, Sailwind is a veteran - you're not.

I'd go with his take - and he is dead right - America did break Iraq.

That's a fact and it needs to be said again.

Sarge - "When you say we broke Iraq, you're dissing our troops over there."

No he's not. He's stating fact.

You are not.

"Republican war supportersseem to have a vague idea that they want 'victory'... but they have no idea whatsoever how it is going to be achieved"

It's being achieved as we speak, despite Sushi's fervent desire to see us fail.

Sailwind - "we needed more damn troops from the start"

Sarge - "We had enough U.S. troops there."

So, why the need for the "surge"???????????????

Honestly, reality contradicts Republicans every time. :-)

"Other countries should have contributed more troops - why should it be 95% us?"

Because your Government conned you into this war of choice and enough Americans were stupid enough to buy into the propaganda.

The population of "other countries" didn't.

That's the key difference.

Basically, I'm sorry to say - you were sucked in something massive, but it's too late to say sorry now - you've already screwed Iraq and Iraqis royally amd your exonomy is tanking in no small part because of it.

Sarge, mate - Welcome To Reality! (phew! It's only been 6 years but now you finally understand what has happened - congrats!)

Sushi, sorry, I'm not your mate, but I am indeed a veteran. A veteran stating the facts.

Sarge, agreed, you're not my mate. :-)

Can you explain to us why, if - as you claim - the US had enough troops in Iraq, there was a need for 30,000 MORE troops to create the "surge?"

You seem to be completely contradicting yourself.

Confederate2008 - "I believe kids should be taught the American way, and why we must support our military and our president."

Since you're obviously unfamiliar with the US military, let me enlighten you a bit, as an Active Duty troop. If the President is wrong, you hold him accountable. If you truly support the military, you must remember that the President is the C-in-C - our BOSS. We don't view elections as the "sporting events" so many civilians seem to, wherein both parties talk smack about the other, and after the "big game" (election), the winners gloat, the losers whine, and within a week, everyone goes right back to their normal everyday lives. We swore to follow the President's orders including, tragically, those of a President like bush whose strategy is a proven, inarguable failure; the alternative would be mutiny and treason, far beyond the thoughts of good troops.

So, if you truly care about the American way, and teaching to your kids, tell them about their rights to question their leaders and hold them accountable. Emphasize to them that supporting the military does not always meaning supporting the President; rather teach them to look carefully at the candidates and elect the one who will BEST serve the military, so we can BEST serve you. This is certainly what I teach my kids.

Obama = victory in Afghanistan (a.k.a. the War On Terror) McCain = stalemate/defeat in the War On Terror; obsession with the Battle of Iraq

Obama '08

USAFdude - I agree with your post. Nicely put. < :-)

Sarge, I finally see what is driving you now - Pride and Honor.

You are adamant the troops shouldn't be "dissed" and you are petrified of 'dishonoring the troops."

It sure looks like you are strongly driven by emotions.

However, as an honest piece of advice, you need to be careful that your emotions do not cloud your ability to think through facts and events logically and clearly.

USAFDude - I agree - great post.

Some of your words should be used in the Pledge of Allegiance.

USAFdude; I am familiar with the US military. That is why i said kids should support our president and military, as i am well aware that the military is the boss. That is why we need an ex military hero to lead us , not an inexperienced man with dubious friends in his past.

No way can we run from Iraq after the rebuilding we have done. Why waste all the sacrifice?

Sarge, please note these very wise words from USAFdude -

"Emphasize to them that supporting the military does not always meaning supporting the President."

Should say"president is the boss"

SushiSake3 and adaydream; Come on guys, enough silliness, this is a serious matter to debate.

WE must ensure that when we do leave Iraq, our legacy is one of freedom and democracy. Freedom will not be stifled. Those that try to undo our great job will be out of luck. We will stay we will perservere. We shall stand resolute in victory.

Confederate2008 - military is the boss. or president is the boss.

You've posted both.

Just because the president is the boss doesn't mean that the president has to be a military man. It just means that he has to surround himself with people who understand, have been there and have good advise for the president.

John McCain has already said he knows nothing about the economy. If he were to be elected he'd have to surround himself with people who understand the economy.

But we all know that Barack Obama has more dreams and aspirations for the country then John McCain. John McCain wants to continue using my tax dollars to give to the war machine and tax breaks for the rich.

Go Barack. < :-)

Legacy, that's what you're concerned about. Great job, you're the silly one now. < :-)

adaydream; I see you do have any constructive criticism of my posts.

Our legacy will be great, bringing bdemocracy to the middle east, and deposing of the most dangerous tyrant of our time.

We must stay in Iraq to ensure we continue the progress.

Confederate2008 - "WE must ensure that when we do leave Iraq, our legacy is one of freedom and democracy."

And leave the US economy squandering in $10 TRILLION in debt, paying $200 billion a year in debt servicing costs and no way whatsoever to continue funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan withoug compounding that mountain of debt even further?

What are you talking about?

As I posted hours ago - you have lofty dreams but zero actual strategy for how to achieve those dreams.

I think you need to come back to us with some specific points for how the US can stay in Iraq to achieve this "legacy of freedom and democracy," and what hte heck is that anyway?

I mean, can you even define that "legacy of freedom and democracy"?

I don't think you are capable even of doing that.

Sheesh, this just sinks lower and lower.

No wonder America is losing the war on terror.

SushiSake3- I think you are starting to see my point. Whatever the financial cost, we will do our duty to make the world a better place. Our history is one of scarifices for the greater good of mankind, and we continue in that fine tradition now. Freedom and democracy will be effective in Iraq with the demise of the enemy. This may take several decades, but we will defeat them.

Confederate - "Our legacy will be great, bringing bdemocracy to the middle east"

But you haven't, and your president has just authorized the retreat of America from Iraq, leaving it worse off than it was under Saddman while burying your economy under $10 TRILLION in debt.

That's quite an achievement! Congratulations!

Confederate2008 - let's get some things straight -

You want the US to achieve victory in Iraq, but -

1/ You have no idea whatsoever how this will be achieved.

2/ You have no idea whatsoever how this strategy will be funded.

3/ You believe America could be in Iraq "for 100 years"

4/ You say "Whatever the financial cost, we will do our duty to make the world a better place."

But, where is the money going to come from?

America has almost $10 TRILLION in debt.

I'm not really interested in your soaring rhetoric - please tell me specifically (use lots of bullet points if you like)

1/ How victory will be achieved in Iraq, and

2/ Where the money to achieve this victory will come from.

If you can't do that, I'll assume you have no idea what you are talking about and are simply dreaming stuff.

SushiSake3-

We shall achieve victory in Iraq, by staying the course, until the enemy is totally routed.

The money comes from year on year economic growth. Maybe it is expensive, but freedom is not free.

Confederate - OK, let's start with an easy question for you -

Can you tell me what this (your words) "legacy of freedom and democracy" you want America to leave Iraq is all about?

Confederate2008 - my next simple question for you is -

Q: Where is the $850 billion going to come from to fund a continued US presence in Iraq until the Bush Retreat Date of December 2011?

No more soaring rhetoric please - specifics only.

Thanks.

SushiSake3- Do you ever read my posts? i do provide you with the answers already.

Our legacy will be a free Iraq, witha market economy, full human rights and freedom of speech.

The cost will be met with the increse in GDP of our economy through the years.

I agree with Sarge and Confederate2008;

What is wrong with us doing our duty snd protcting Iraq.

This liberation has gone to plan. Of course liberation costs money, freedom is never free.

We have done a great job, not even Liberals can deny that fact.

Bilderberg666 - Iraq wants us out. What's so hard to understand here? < :-)

adaydream; Iraq does not fully understand the consequences of us leaving.

We have to persuade them , by whatever method we deem fit, to accept us staying for a long period of time.

This will ensure Iraq remains a free and safe nation for its residents.

No we don't have to persuade them. You needed to be persuaded that Iraq does not want us in their country any longer, period. < :-)

Bilderberg666 - to accept us staying for a long period of time.

Even John McCain has dropped the staying forever mantra. Have you missed that? < :-)

America will be out of Iraq within a year but not because we are winning. Study history because in about a month or two we are going to see a repeat. Does anyone remember the Tet Offensive back in 1968 in Vietnam?

General Westmoreland told everyone that 80 percent of south Vietnam was passified (military talk for in our control) everything seemed quiet when all of a sudden the VC and NVA lunch a country wide attack where they took back about every single city for a about a week to two weeks showing that the U.S. military was NOT in control. The U.S. lost face big time and this is what got us out of the war.

Well the samething is going to happen in Iraq in about a month or two. Have you noticed just how quiet it is in Iraq and how things are heating up in Afganstan (they want the U.S. to pull troops out of Iraq and shift them to Afganstan).

This has a two phase purpose. 1. is to have the U.S. loose face in the Middle East and 2. to make sure that a Democrate will be elected president. Because Mr. Obama is just another Jimmy Carter when it comes to international crisis.

Watch out people because history is about to repeat itself.

Bilderburg - here's a question I've often asked on JT, but to which I've never received a reply. You ask "What is wrong with us doing our duty snd protcting Iraq." I ask "How can we better protect Iraq and the rest of the ME, if not the rest of the world, than by putting the majority of our troops in Afghanistan and hunting down the terrorists' LEADERS?"

USAFdude- We went to Iraq to depose Saddam. We did not expect so many terrorists to flood in to Iraq and try to defeat our liberation.

Now the main front on Terror is Iraq, with weapons and the enemy flooding in mainky through Iran and some through Syria.

The terrorist leaders are almost useless now, that is why they cannot stage major attacks overseas anymore.

We must continue our fight in Iraq and defeat those who wish to end our liberation mission.

Ha!! Ha!! Ha!! Ha!! I love it Bilderberg666.

USAFdude you ask the right question. Bilderberg666 is so out of touch that that he'd continue to sacrifice the troops in Afghanistan for a delusional dream of staying in Iraq.

Even if that means forcing the Iraqis to see it your way Bilderberg666? < :-)

adaydream- The Iraqi`s will see the light, you are correct buddy.

I am not out of touch, i am a realist. I believe in completing the mission, and making Iraq a great democracy. What is delusional about that?

Bilderberg666 - The delusional part is, Iraq has said to get the hell out. Your idea that we'll convence them we need to stay.

What if they don't follow your idea to allow us to stay? Are you advocating forcing the Iraqis hand and we stay unwelcomed? < :-)

adaydream- We have ways and means to make the Iraqi`s see our point of view.

They are excited that we made them democratic, but we have to teach them how to use the freedom wisely.

The average Iraqi makes us very welcome, and are hoping we will stay and defend them.

Have a good day Bilderberg666. You refuse to accept the possibility that Iraq doesn't want us in their country any longer. < :-)

adaydream- Ah i see, so you admit defeat on this defeat?

I hope you see now, why we must stay the course. Iraq will stay free as long as we are in control.

Should say "defeat on this topic".

The irony did not escape me in reading an Op-Ed piece in today's WSJ in which the authors, neocons Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman, try to appeal to Russia's self-interest by pointing out territorial conquest in the form of spheres of influence will "impoverish its citizens in the process."

Since they reject the same argument when its made about the US occupation of Iraq, why do they think the Russians will react differently? The world is a much more dangerous place when governments feel they can invade other states on the basis of national security defined to suit the situation.

Betzee- The US liberated Iraq from a brutal dictator.

Russia invaded and bombed an innocent country.

There is a lot of difference in the 2. We can stay in Iraq with UN support, Russia is condemned woldwide for its actions.

Defeat no. I got things to do besides hearing the same thing from you. Good grief, really into yourself. < :-)

Bilderberg666,

Those in favor of Operation Iraqi Freedom often pointed out that with precision weapons you could take out the leadership and leave the civilian population unharmed (which was not true in previous conflicts). But once Saddam fell back in March 2003, it degenerated into chaos/old-fashioned warfare in which civilian casualties have been high. The common response is to blame the other side to duck our responsibility for setting the violence in motion.

As a result, the Russians and the Chinese are not going to be lectured to by us that "violence doesn't solve anything." Other governments are going to feel they can take the law into their own hands and the hell with international public opinion.

Betzee- The US can i no way be compared to China and Russia, they are states that restrict freedoms and do not adhere to our rules of engagement.

WE went to Iraq to liberate, Russia went to invade. Civilian casualties have been very low in Iraq due to our care to protect innocents.

We shall continue to fight the enemy, and only bomb when we know innocnts will not be harmed.

WE went to Iraq to liberate, Russia went to invade. Civilian casualties have been very low in Iraq due to our care to protect innocents. We shall continue to fight the enemy, and only bomb when we know innocnts will not be harmed.

Yet they still want us to leave. That's quite a "pickle." Heck, maybe even "18" of them?! ;-)

Taka

Bilderberg-"We went to Iraq to depose Saddam. We did not expect so many terrorists to flood in to Iraq and try to defeat our liberation.

Now the main front on Terror is Iraq" Why did we worry about Saddam when the Afghanistan mission was unfinished? If we have more terrorists than we expected, why not go to Afghanistan and take out the terrorists' REAL leaders, starting with Osama bin Laden? How is Iraq the main front and not Afghanistan?

Well, it isn't.

Afghanistan is where we need to be first and foremost, and I resent people like you who disgrace the memory of our fallen comrades who died there but minimizing their mission for reasons you can't articulate.

The world will never be safe while OBL lives. We'll never take him down unless we refocus our attention on the central front - Afghanistan. To not do so is to admit defeat in the war on terror and offer Iraq up as a very unsatisfactory concilation.

Not good enough for me. Not good enough for Obama. Not good enough for America.

Now you'll excuse me; I have duties to fulfill.

USAFdude-

If you resent me and feel that i disgrace the memory of our fallen troops, why do reply to me? I am sad for every casualty. I want us to achieve more in Iraq, and keep the area safe permanently.

If you disagree, ok, but please don`t use that type of language, as i have never insulted the honor of our troops.

Well, if the elected Iraqi leaders want us out, by golly, I guess we have been successful!

USAFdude ( 12:04 AM )- "supporting the military does not always meaning ( mean ) supporting the President"

Please say that to your base commander. I'm begging you.

Sail, You are right about the U.S. breaking Iraq. The problem with us fixing it is A) we haven't stopped breaking it, B) as I discussed with Betzee upthread, the people we have put in place to fix it are only fixing their retirements and C) to fix Iraq, we may very well end up breaking America. I don't know what the answer to this situation is. I wish I did but this may have been a fork-up of such epic proportions that it cannot be fixed.

Iraq has been truly and wholly "Arbusto'd."

Taka

Bilderberg - I'm never afraid to speak out against those who dishonor our fallen troops - ALL of them, not just the ones in Iraq. Your obsession with Iraq blinds you to the realities on the ground in Afghanistan. As for my language, I speak only the language of truth and fact; if you can't handle that don't reply to me. But then again, your right to "speak" is one of the reasons I serve.

Sarge - "Please say that to your base commander. I'm begging you."

Won't have to after Barack Obama is inaugurated President of the United States in January, 2009!

USAFdude- I always support our troops, not just with words but with actions.

Obama would leave the military underfunded, and unable to defend itself properly. Obama wants to take away money from the military and use it for his social welfare programmes. How is that going to make our missions better?

Prove it.

USAFdude,

See the other thread where McCain tells what will happen if Obama is elected. I trust what the guy says.

McCain foreign policy adviser says Obama supports "strategy for defeat"

Sen. Barack Obama says more troops needed in Afghanistan

Obama meets with Afghan President Hamid Karzai

Obama has said part of his strategy is "taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/20/obama.afghanistan/

No need. I already know we'll be better off with Obama.

USAFdude- Is it really sensible trusting an inexperienced man without a military background?

Obama says lots of things, but can we trust him to follow through with them, he is well known as a serial flip flopper.

McCain has experienced war first hand, he has empathy fo our troops, and is in touch with the feelings of the average guy.

Yes. Trusting "an inexperienced man without a military background" but who has an inarguably winning strategy (in the eyes of a US troop who does have an extensive military background) makes a lot more sense than trusting an old man with "old school" ideas that equate to no more than the unacceptable status quo.

I don't know about you, but I want America to WIN this war!

Obama may have a plan that sounds good to you, but does he have the ability and experience to act it out.

McCain has proven his commitment to the military, he knows about military strategy. Obama is making it up as he goes alone, hoping no-one will realise he is a fraud.

A plan that sounds good to me and the vast majority of US troops with whom I've spoken (and believe me, it's a lot). Just remember - we troops vote too!

Obama '08

"Sail, you are right about the U.S. breaking Iraq"

No, he isn't. I can't stand to see two former U.S. servicemen dissing our troops like this on this site. The vast majority of all the death and destruction in Iraq is due to the wacko extremists our brave troops are fighting.

"I already know we'll be better off with Obama"

I already know we won't be.

Sarge - but you can't prove it. xD

I can't stand to see a former US servicman dissing our troops like this on this site. The vast majority of all the death and destruction in Afghanistan (and in America on 11 Sep 01) is due to not having enough of our brave troops fighting where they're really needed.

I have been reading these posts, and i cannot understand why USAFdude wants us to stop the war on terror.

Obama wants us out of Iraq, how can that help anyone? I don`t get it.

Bilderberg666 -

Obama would leave the military underfunded, and unable to defend itself properly.

Unable to defend itself like these soldiers were left undefended?

nearly one-quarter of American troops serving in Iraq did not have ceramic plated body armor, which can stop bullets fired from assault rifles and shrapnel......reservists have not been given the same equipment as active duty soldiers.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-26-body-armor_x.htm

Or like these soldiers?

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" "...you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want"

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/08/rumsfeld.troops/

...you'd rather the next administration treat the military the same way the present one has?

Got something against soldiers, have you?

ColAmerica A real colonel would know! Leaving Iraq means more troops in Afghanistan to confront the terrorists' leaders, thus defeating the terrorists definitively.

That's not "stopping" the war on terror; that's winning it for America. Can't put it any plainer than that. Unless of course, you can explain why Iraq is more important than Afghanistan...

Cleo;

Obama would cut military spending, to fund his social welfare plans. This would mean the troops have less funds for protective equipment than now.

In war, nothing is perfect, the best has to be made out of difficult situations.Less funding by Obama, would not assist our troops.

USAFdude- Iraq is in the middle of Syria and Iran. They want to take control of Iraq and install a fundementalist govt. This situation would leave us open to attack from long range Iranian weapons. Israel would certainly be attcked, and possibly nuked by Iran.

Our presence in Iraq is stopping this from occuring. If we leave, a possible third world war would begin.

Geography lesson - more than one country borders Iran. One of them is Afghanistan.

Checkmate.

Bilderberg; prove your assertions that Obama would cut military spending.

Political lesson-Afghanistan is not sending militants and weaponary into Iraq. That is Syria and Iran. If we leave they destroy everything we have accomplished.

Sounds like this leader is asking for it. Regime change, here I come.

The problem with "supporting the troops" is that it has become a euphemism for "supporting American exceptionalism". Eisenhower warned about the power of the military-industrial complex and his warning, perhaps predictably, went unheeded.

"Supporting the troops" in America should mean that our troops are well-equipped and well-cared for. It also means that they are given missions which either can clearly be accomplished or must be attempted regardless of outcome. Iraq has never been either of those.

"Supporting the troops" in America should not mean agreeing with the policy decisions of the president and his advisors. And most definitely it should not mean giving a blank check for more blood and more dollars in an attempt to redeem the blood and dollars already expended. That is a strategy which, when applied to corporations, threatens to bankrupt them. When applied to nations the results are little different.

Military lesson - the man responsible for 9/11 is in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Take out Al-Qaeda's leaders and the followers are easier to pick off. War on terror is thus won by the US.

PS: We do have missiles capable of hitting Syria from Afghanistan.

maybe your access o current info is limited, but bthe latest i heard was, Bin laden and co were hiding out inside Iran now, as he believes we cannot ouch him there.

The US people must be educated into why our long term presence in Iraq is desperatley needed.

Yet in your accumulated posts you don't offer any argument to support that claim, just a collection of points.

With terorists pouring into Iraq, we cannot leave the country to the mercy of these maniacs.

The US military has acknowledged at most 5 percent of insurgent fighters are non-Iraqi nationals. The bulk come from Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 hijackers grew up. Yet it's also America's gas station making it hard to press for change given the repressive government is a reliable agent of oil. Offshore drilling won't change that; as long as the Saudis have other buyers for their oil nothing will change.

We will leave when you decide Iraq is secure, safe from invasion, and able to support itself, and NOT before.

How will we know when that day has arrived? I've been told that will be left to the commanders in the field. But how will they arrive at that determination? There must be some basis. The Iraqis are telling us it will be here by 2011, yet you dismiss this despite PM Maliki democratic credentials. Given it's costing us 3 billion a week to remain, this question needs to be addressed.

The Iraqi people have a democratic government, however that government is immature and does not have the abilities to make the correct decisions regarding security matters.

I have been branded selfish and racist by other posters owing to my lack of support for spreading freedom (from the barrel of a gun). Freedom is rarely defined, however, and means different things to different folks. For those in the post-colonial world who were ruled by a different race, it means self-government. For Westerners, it means limited government. So we're fighting to install a limited government in a country with a security vacuum? This makes no sense.

Leaving an unsafe state would be a waste of years of work rebuilding the country.

The sunk cost argument. That was raised after we'd lost a couple of hundred men in Vietnam. The ultimate tally was 58,000, nearly half of whom died after Nixon came into office promising to end the war. "Ex military hero" John McCain believes we could have won through more intensive bombing of the North, reflecting a view that superior force can break people. There's scant evidence to support that, however.

We must be prepared to sacrifice financially and in lives,

In fact the war has become open-ended precisely because the majority has not been asked to sacrifice at all and could simply accept what they told. There's no draft of course; instead the cost of private contractor security services will reach USD 100 billion by the end of GWB's term. Presumably that is part of the USD 5 trillion debt he is bequeathing future generations of taxpayers. I question the patriotism of those who shrug off that repayment burden; concern for your country's welfare should be in perpetuity not lifetime.

Russia’s action has been condemned worldwide.

True, but that may prove helpful to Moscow. As I wrote about the utility of economic sanctions which "offer an unpopular government the opportunity to rally support under the nationalist banner of demonstrating resolve against external enemies."

The same logic holds here; outside condemnation can prompt citizens to support their leadership. It certainly played well with GWB's base when the UN Security Council refused to sign off on a pre-emptive strike against Saddam's regime in 2003. “Well, if the UN objects that means we’re doing something right.” Ditto for the Chinese when Beijing came under censure for cracking down on Tibetans. And Russians overwhelmingly back their government's invasion of Georgia.

The problem with "supporting the troops" is that it has become a euphemism for "supporting American exceptionalism".

This point is addressed by retired Army Colonel Andrew Bacevich in The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism who notes:

[T]he reconciliation of the people and the Army turned out to be a chimera. When the chips were down, "supporting the troops" elicited plenty of posturing but little by way of binding commitments. Far from producing a stampede of eager recruits keen to don a uniform, the events of 9/11 reaffirmed a widespread popular preference for hiring someone else's kid to chase terrorists, spread democracy and ensure access to the world's energy reserves.

Even the neocons could not ignore the problem leading Max Boot, in February 2005, to propose in an article later referred to as "Uncle Sam Wants Tu," that US armed forces "open up recruiting stations from Budapest to Bangkok, Cape Town to Cairo, Montreal to Mexico City" to raise up a Freedom Legion of foreign mercenaries. If the Pentagon needed to scour the streets of Cape Town and Cairo to fill its ranks, the situation was indeed dire.

Betzee- Another liberal post, lying about the integrity of our president, and falsley inferring their is a troop shortage.

We have plenty of troops, and equipment, our hardware is awesome.

We can stay in Iraq for 100 years, if we deem that to be the best choice for Iraq to flourish.

Remember, this war may not end in our lifetimes. 100 years of bases in Iraq is a possibility we must face up to.

100 years of bases in Iraq is a possibility we must face up

And how are we facing up to it? "War costs money," Franklin Roosevelt reminded the American people after Pearl Harbor. "That means taxes and bonds. It means cutting luxuries and non-essentials."

By contrast GWB, less than two weeks after tohse planes hit the twin towers, encouraged his countrymen to "enjoy America's great vacation spots. Get down to Disney World in Florida." As late as December 2006, when the situation in Iraq was looking pretty grim, GWB noted with satisfaction that the national's annual holdiay shopping binge was off to a strong start. Nonetheless he encouraged "you all to go shopping even more."

How does this jive with your slogan "freedom isn't free"? Maybe the NYT's got it right in a provocative Feb 06 article: "Is freedom just another word for many things to buy?" As Bacevich writes, "Through their actions after 9/11, as before, ten of millions of Americans answered in the affirmative."

Betzee- President bush urged people to travel and go on vacations to lift the spirits of a broken people. His sensitive thinking brought the US together, where all joined and supported the war on terror.

The fact that we may have to remain in Iraq for a long period is due to external trouble makers, wishing to hurt us by destroying our mission.

betzee,

bacevich is a remarkable man whose analysis of the bush failed invasion is spot on. And beyond the idle postings of the reactionary winger crowd bacevich gave up his son to bush's lies and delinquent behavior. Have you read his book?

the flag waiving winger community cheers for the deaths of the very soldiers they claim to support with their stupid bumper stickers and false patriotism. The fact is that Iraq is a failure that was brought to us by US oil companies and the blood lost there is in exchange for oil. No slogans can hide that fact. No flag waving can make up for the hundreds of thousands of dead kids and others who have died for nothing noble, only for greed wrapped in corruption and covered in failure.

he was on Moyers recently. Great interview.

It's a game of "numbers". How the spending has been allocated to the budgets and black budgets, VERY telling where this is all leading. I believe international bankers looking at the US suspects the agenda. From what I have experienced in the last ten years and some confirmations of my theories, the need for a naval/air force engagement in the Asia-Pacific seems a foregone conclusion.

The US is armed to the teeth, w/out a suitable major conflict, w/ a military buildup dependent on credit

Of course the troops need to get out but it should be managed correctly by Obama and his people. It's very important that the soldiers continue to be portrayed exclusively as criminals over there and as victims back in America.

ColAmerica: "maybe your access o current info is limited, but bthe latest i heard was, Bin laden and co were hiding out inside Iran now, as he believes we cannot ouch him there."

Hate to burst your bubble, but clearly you cannot touch him anywhere; hence, your dear leader decided to go illegally into Iraq as a kind of distraction from the inability to track down a single man with very little technology behind him.