Very simple. Conduct a survey of Iraqis asking: should the USA stay or should it leave? One or the other. Nothing halfway.

If as I think they will say, get the hell out, then we honor their wishes and get the hell out. Whatever happens there afterwards is their problem to solve. We'll leave having succeeded in the original objectives of booting Sadaam out, making sure there were no WMD's, and giving the Iraqi people a chance at self-government. It's their responsibility to make it or break it. We'll hope for the best and be there to advise as needed, but if they botch it up, they botch it up.

PLAN B: Carpet bomb the entire country killing everybody, in order to be sure that we get the bad guys and gals, whoever the hell they are.

Very simple. Conduct a survey of Iraqis asking: should the USA stay or should it leave? One or the other. Nothing halfway.

If as I think they will say, get the hell out, then we honor their wishes and get the hell out. Whatever happens there afterwards is their problem to solve. We'll leave having succeeded in the original objectives of booting Sadaam out, making sure there were no WMD's, and giving the Iraqi people a chance at self-government. It's their responsibility to make it or break it. We'll hope for the best and be there to advise as needed, but if they botch it up, they botch it up.

PLAN B: Carpet bomb the entire country killing everybody, in order to be sure that we get the bad guys and gals, whoever the hell they are.

Do you ask the Shiites or the Sunnis or the Kurds? If we left now, the Shiites would kick the crap out of the Sunnis, I don't know if you would call it genocide, but it would be close. Iran is run by the Shiites. Once the Sunnis are out of the way, then they turn on the Kurds and drive them up into Turkey. Turkey doesn't want them either and will run them out. The only pseudo positive thing that Saddam did was keep all the groups from killing each other. Doing it with fear, rape rooms, torture, chemicals, etc would be the downside to that. Blame it on the British after WW2, they created the mess.

Doing it with fear, rape rooms, torture, chemicals, etc would be the downside to that.

Kinda like at Gitmo?

Do you ask the Shiites or the Sunnis or the Kurds? If we left now, the Shiites would kick the crap out of the Sunnis, I don't know if you would call it genocide, but it would be close. Iran is run by the Shiites. Once the Sunnis are out of the way, then they turn on the Kurds and drive them up into Turkey. Turkey doesn't want them either and will run them out. The only pseudo positive thing that Saddam did was keep all the groups from killing each other. Doing it with fear, rape rooms, torture, chemicals, etc would be the downside to that. Blame it on the British after WW2, they created the mess.That's the problem: Too much diversity over there. Let them (the strong) kill off the weaker groups and the fighting will stop naturally. If they attack us after that then we can kill them with impunity because we won't have to worry about hitting any of our 'allies'.

All or nothing...

get a kurd a shia and a sunni...line him up at the thirty yard line. Put the ball on the fifty...blow the whistle and in pure XFL style whoever gets the spheroid...gets the country.

Done.

/bet on the guy that doesn't show up in robes, too hard to run in, easy to pull down from behind.

All or nothing...

get a kurd a shia and a sunni...line him up at the thirty yard line. Put the ball on the fifty...blow the whistle and in pure XFL style whoever gets the spheroid...gets the country.

Done.

/bet on the guy that doesn't show up in robes, too hard to run in, easy to pull down from behind.But don't tell them that the ball is.... a LIVE HAND GERNADE!

/Stewie Griffin reference

So you and Ken are supporters of the survival of the fittest? You say let the weak fall by the wayside and be killed off? Nice sentiments. I thought libs were all about protecting the weak and those unable to care for themselves.

Using your mindset I say we go in an take over the entire ME. We blast the crap out of them. March in and grab the oil for our own domestic use. We already own Iraq according to the libs. I bet it would be just as easy to take Iran and Syria. Heck the Saudis would just hand us the oil and go off into the desert to smoke a hooka. We are the strongest after all.

So you and Ken are supporters of the survival of the fittest? You say let the weak fall by the wayside and be killed off? Nice sentiments. I thought libs were all about protecting the weak and those unable to care for themselves.

Using your mindset I say we go in an take over the entire ME. We blast the crap out of them. March in and grab the oil for our own domestic use. We already own Iraq according to the libs. I bet it would be just as easy to take Iran and Syria. Heck the Saudis would just hand us the oil and go off into the desert to smoke a hooka. We are the strongest after all.Steam, you're the lib here, not me.

Social Darwinism is my middle name. I've been saying that we should blast them to dust all along (actually, I'm in favor of starving them to death) -- not this panny waste libbie adventure we're on right now, trying to 'save' them and bring them a democracy they neither deserve nor want.

The prudent course is to let them kill each other off to save us the time, money and American lives. We should then go in after them when they're done and at their weakest and kill them all.

The libbie Bush plan ain't working and never would have in the first place.

But don't tell them that the ball is.... a LIVE HAND GERNADE!

/Stewie Griffin reference


BBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMM!!!!

HEHE..LOL

But don't tell them that the ball is.... a LIVE HAND GERNADE!

/Stewie Griffin reference

I wonder if they can make a claymore look like a football, that would be cool..

Steam, you're the lib here, not me.

Social Darwinism is my middle name. I've been saying that we should blast them to dust all along (actually, I'm in favor of starving them to death) -- not this panny waste libbie adventure we're on right now, trying to 'save' them and bring them a democracy they neither deserve nor want.

The prudent course is to let them kill each other off to save us the time, money and American lives. We should then go in after them when they're done and at their weakest and kill them all.

The libbie Bush plan ain't working and never would have in the first place.


Bush is a liberal...where the he*l have I been, when did this happen....AWWW, gotta re-think ideologies.....

Do you ask the Shiites or the Sunnis or the Kurds? If we left now, the Shiites would kick the crap out of the Sunnis, I don't know if you would call it genocide, but it would be close. Iran is run by the Shiites. Once the Sunnis are out of the way, then they turn on the Kurds and drive them up into Turkey. Turkey doesn't want them either and will run them out. The only pseudo positive thing that Saddam did was keep all the groups from killing each other. Doing it with fear, rape rooms, torture, chemicals, etc would be the downside to that. Blame it on the British after WW2, they created the mess.

Ask all of them. Have the survey run by some legitimate outfit separate from our government to give it some credibility.

If the results are different among the groups, then splitting the country up should be considered as a serious option. The Kurds and Turkey are going to have to bury old hatchets and agree to deal with each other from a 21st century perspective. The Sunnis and Shiites will also have to find a way to coexist as neighbors.

If the survey results show that they want us to stay, then here's the deal -- you work with us, not against us. We'll give you 12 months to bring the insurgency to a halt and create something for yourselves. What you end up with at the end of that period will be yours to either be proud of or to be in fear of. Because from then on, we're packing up and heading home.

Maybe you're right. I am the lib. I have never thought we would ever need to use total force to extinguish this insidious threat of Islamofascism. I believe in the ultimate good nature of man vs. the bad nature. I believe given a choice and the option to live an existence free of tyranny and terror, people will choose freedom and will be willing to fight and die for it. I cannot understand the suicide bomber mentality. They are fighting and dying for a cause, but that cause does not promote freedom. It promotes servitude. Why would these people want to die for a cause that would have them live in poverty and under a rule where their freedoms are diminished and limited to what a cultural leader decrees? The only reason I can ascribe to it is they are desperate. Not because of our presence, but because of the helpless state they have lived in for centuries. It's just not understandable.

However there were tens of millions that did turn out to vote for freedom and the right to govern themselves. I believe there are millions more of them than there are those willing to blow themselves up for an archaic existence devoid of the rights and freedoms we enjoy. If the World were to truly unit behind the principles that are accepted as germane to civilized existence, I believe this war on terrorism can be won. Using it as a means to leverage trade advantage with ME countries, is never going to allow for this to be resolved. It appears to be in some nations interest to allow this to fester and continue. It won't go away on it's own. Turning a blind eye to it has cause it to increase both in numbers and in the severity of it's destructiveness.

There is not one person who does not believe now or immediately after 9/11 that the next act of terror will attempt to out-do the events of 9/11. Most all expect a more horrific event to occur. Are we to wait until that event to take a more proactive stance?

I am not sure blowing up the place is the answer. That's kind of like killing the patient to cure the disease.

Why not just declare victory and send all the troops done?... sort of like the "mission accomplished" declaration.

The Sunnis and Shiites will also have to find a way to coexist as neighbors.


That is the rub. They won't get along and there are more Shiites than Sunnis and it would just be a matter of time before the Sunnis are wiped out. Now you have Iran and Iraq getting along because they are both run by Shia officials. Iran is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Israel feels threatened and makes smoldering radioactive wastelands out of both countries. There is no stability in the near future for the ME. We know that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons yet. If they had, they would have used them on Iraq many years ago. Any boasting on the part of Iran about weapons would mean that Israeli jets are just over the horizon carrying GPS guided bunker busters that we sold them. The whole ME is way more complicated than the media makes it out to be.

Kinda like at Gitmo?

Yup, lots of raping and chemical attacks going on down there. You can do better than that.

That is the rub. They won't get along and there are more Shiites than Sunnis and it would just be a matter of time before the Sunnis are wiped out. Now you have Iran and Iraq getting along because they are both run by Shia officials. Iran is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Israel feels threatened and makes smoldering radioactive wastelands out of both countries. There is no stability in the near future for the ME. We know that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons yet. If they had, they would have used them on Iraq many years ago. Any boasting on the part of Iran about weapons would mean that Israeli jets are just over the horizon carrying GPS guided bunker busters that we sold them. The whole ME is way more complicated than the media makes it out to be.

We don't live in a perfect world and the fix we got ourselves into in Iraq is a great example of that maxim. Right now we're stuck there in a holding pattern wasting the precious resource that gives us strength - our military. And the longer this happens, the greater the risk will be that the rest of the world will see us not as the mighty superpower that we would like them to imagine us to be, but as just another empire in the process of discovering its limits, to be followed by the inevitable fall from grace into the ashcan of history where we are to join all the other failed empires whose flawed visions and dreams of how the world should be caused them to extend themselves beyond reality into the danger zone of delusion.

There's no leadership moving us towards any defined goals or objectives. After we succeeded in getting rid of Sadaam and his WMD's, the mission changed to something nebulous with no defined endpoint. This has got to change.

Sure, what you say might happen if we leave (but not necessarily - could you be overrating the animosity between the groups?). What is your alternative? Stay the course, when there is no course defined? No endpoint in sight? No leadership present with any guts to make hard decisions?

Time is growing very short; for the American people are becoming more and more demanding.

There is not one person who does not believe now or immediately after 9/11 that the next act of terror will attempt to out-do the events of 9/11. Most all expect a more horrific event to occur. Are we to wait until that event to take a more proactive stance?

I am not sure blowing up the place is the answer. That's kind of like killing the patient to cure the disease.Proactive does not necessarily mean committing troops to an occupation. There are many ways more sensible and in line with our ideals to be proactive in the defense of our citizens and soil that also have a much better chance of being more effective in the long term.

Wars of choice are for the simple-minded but if you're going to do it, then do it 'gloves off' as Snake put it. Do it and make a statement of it because believing in the good nature of our fellow humans will only get you more events like 9/11.

Isolationism is not an answer in a 21st Century World. Containment isn't either. There are too many interfaces of existence. Many more than existed even 25 - 30 years ago. For better or worse we have become a global community at every level.

It's quite perplexing that libs accept and even embrace the tenets of communism/socialism, but deride the spreading of the tenets of democracy. Would it be a bad thing if the nations of the ME ever became a functioning democratic societies?

Isolationism is not an answer in a 21st Century World. Containment isn't either. There are too many interfaces of existence. Many more than existed even 25 - 30 years ago. For better or worse we have become a global community at every level.

It's quite perplexing that libs accept and even embrace the tenets of communism/socialism, but deride the spreading of the tenets of democracy. Would it be a bad thing if the nations of the ME ever became a functioning democratic societies?

Ironically, the best lesson in democracy we could ever teach the Iraqis would be to leave, if they ask us to.

They'd be shocked - what do they know other than kings and despots? They see us as unwanted occupants. How's this for a scenario - they finally figure it out, that indeed the people do have power of a sort that they never figured upon. They said they wanted us out, and the genie granted their wish!

That point will be when they begin to believe in themselves, and the groundswell will begin from below. Of course it's going to seem like a confused mess. What comes out of it is hard to say, and it might not be what we would have wanted, but at least for once, the result will be sourced from the people themselves.

Ironically, the best lesson in democracy we could ever teach the Iraqis would be to leave, if they ask us to.

They'd be shocked - what do they know other than kings and despots? They see us as unwanted occupants. How's this for a scenario - they finally figure it out, that indeed the people do have power of a sort that they never figured upon. They said they wanted us out, and the genie granted their wish!

That point will be when they begin to believe in themselves, and the groundswell will begin from below. Of course it's going to seem like a confused mess. What comes out of it is hard to say, and it might not be what we would have wanted, but at least for once, the result will be sourced from the people themselves.

But, you see, they didn't invite us in. We went in with hostile intent to correct a situation detrimental to our national interests. We will leave when we have secured those interests and hopefully, that will be another lesson to add to the one about the advantages of a form of democracy. One their neighbors may learn as well.

But, you see, they didn't invite us in. We went in with hostile intent to correct a situation detrimental to our national interests. We will leave when we have secured those interests and hopefully, that will be another lesson to add to the one about the advantages of a form of democracy. One their neighbors may learn as well.

Be specific. What 'interests' that needed correction led us into Iraq? And what are those 'interests' that have yet to be secured?

Be specific. What 'interests' that needed correction led us into Iraq? And what are those 'interests' that have yet to be secured?

What brought us there was the failure to comply with a number of UN resolutions. It is now in our interest to establish a stable government prior to leaving. The insurgency is disrupting that process a little.

The only people who want us to leave before a stable society governed by democracy is in place are the Islamofascists and the Bathists. Those that would choose to live in a peaceful democratic society do not. Should we abandon them? I thought we came to the aid of such people.

The only people who want us to leave before a stable society governed by democracy is in place are the Islamofascists and the Bathists. Those that would choose to live in a peaceful democratic society do not. Should we abandon them? I thought we came to the aid of such people.

Let's survey the Iraqi people, and if they say get out, we'll honor their wishes and start packing to leave. That's democracy in action.

What brought us there was the failure to comply with a number of UN resolutions. It is now in our interest to establish a stable government prior to leaving. The insurgency is disrupting that process a little.

Shaky reason to start this war; a lengthy, costly and improbable task to finish it by ourselves. Forcing stability upon an unstable and unwilling society? We're spinning our wheels and looking pretty damn foolish while attempting it.

A lot of great historic events started out as improbable, expensive and foolish ventures. Man can fly, the very idea. Send a man to the moon, preposterous.

What if they don't say that? Will you accept that we stay until there is a government that can sustain and protect itself?

A lot of great historic events started out as improbable, expensive and foolish ventures. Man can fly, the very idea. Send a man to the moon, preposterous.True enough, but I can't think of any wars that fit that description though.

True enough, but I can't think of any wars that fit that description though.

Sure, the revolutionary war.....a bunch of upstarts against the finest military force in the world at the time, crazy talk.....look at us now..

Sure, the revolutionary war.....a bunch of upstarts against the finest military force in the world at the time, crazy talk.....look at us now..Ok... I'll give you that one. I wasn't really thinking civil or revolutionary wars (internal wars) but ok. Can you give me another?

How about the Six Day War?

How about the Six Day War?You can't be serious, right? I'll throw it right back at you that it's one of the worst things that happened to ME relations.

You don't believe it was against overwhelming odds? Granted Israel had a well equiped and well armed military, but fighting three fronts?

What if they don't say that? Will you accept that we stay until there is a government that can sustain and protect itself?

As I said elsewhere in this thread, if the survey results show that they want us to stay, then here's the deal we give them ...... you work with us, not against us. We'll give you 12 months to bring the insurgency to a halt and create something for yourselves. What you end up with at the end of that period will be yours to either be proud of or to be in fear of. Because from then on, we're packing up our military and bringing them home.

To answer your second question, no, with the following caveat....... if they buy into the program and defang the insurgency and get serious about becoming stable, I'd be willing to consider extending our presence beyond the 12 month target date provided they ask for more time for us to be present there. If they don't, then sayonara it will be.

You don't believe it was against overwhelming odds? Granted Israel had a well equiped and well armed military, but fighting three fronts?No doubt, but Snake said "great historic events" and compared it to other great things such as going to the Moon or flight in the sense that mankind was better off because of said great things. The Six Day War most definitely does not qualify as a great thing.

A resounding military success, absolutely.

Well I thought you were asking for another example of a battle fought against the odds. It was a pretty significant event. It certainly changed the course of history and proved Israel was a military force to be reckoned with. This one event has allowed them to share borders with Arab nations who would prefer to see them eliminated from the face of the Earth.

Sure, the revolutionary war.....a bunch of upstarts against the finest military force in the world at the time, crazy talk.....look at us now..

That's a pretty good resemblance to the insurgency in Iraq, wouldn't you say?

That's a pretty good resemblance to the insurgency in Iraq, wouldn't you say?No, not in any meaningful sense.

Well I thought you were asking for another example of a battle fought against the odds. It was a pretty significant event. It certainly changed the course of history and proved Israel was a military force to be reckoned with. This one event has allowed them to share borders with Arab nations who would prefer to see them eliminated from the face of the Earth.And it has also set the stage for pretty much every bit of trouble in the ME since then. The world would be much better off if Israel had lost and had been overrun.

That's a pretty good resemblance to the insurgency in Iraq, wouldn't you say?

So you read somewhere about the Ameican patriots blowing up churches and making war on the American populace? Indiscriminatly targeting women and children? I don't recall that part of the story. I see nothing about this siutuation that is the same. Man, I'm glad I'm a redneck neocon, I don't have to look for ways to pacify monsters like these, "patriots."

I see nothing about this siutuation that is the same.

PHYSASST: ".....a bunch of upstarts against the finest military force in the world at the time"

PHYSASST: ".....a bunch of upstarts against the finest military force in the world at the time"

I have to agree with Snake on this...the patriots who founded the US did so against the most powerful military in the world at the time, and changed the way battles were fought. There are some similarities, the british fought in line formations and were unaccustomed to the patriots fight and hide tactics. BUT, the american patriot fought for freedom and not for martyrdom...he would never have condoned attacks on innocents or civilians. So there are some similarities, but not many.

Let's survey the Iraqi people, and if they say get out, we'll honor their wishes and start packing to leave. That's democracy in action.
"The United States has never wavered in its quest to help Iraqis build a democracy that rewards compromise and consensus. The ever generous American people have paid a tragic price, the lives of their finest men and women, to advance the banner of freedom and democracy, a sacrifice for which we are profoundly grateful."
H.E. Masoud Barzani, President, Kurdistan Region in Iraq
http://www.theotheriraq.com/press.html

Man, does he sound pissed!! But he's just one Iraqi. I'm sure that there are many more who would like for us to leave, so that those nice Jordanians like Al Zarqawi, those nice Iranians, those nice Syrians, and the myriad others who would like to occupy Iraq in place of us can take over and drive the Iraqis back to the stone age.

Every time I read a thread like this one, I have trouble believing that people actually believe that by leaving Iraq we would be doing anyone a favor. It is that isolationist naivete that should truly be the worry. The vaccuum that would be created if we left would be filled immediately with those whose sole intention is to deprive Iraqis of their rights, to turn Iraq into an Islamofascist state, and to use the resources of that oil-rich country to wage war on the free peoples of the world. This is not to even mention what the nations unfriendly to us, such as Syria and Iran, would be able to conclude: The US does not have the courage for the fight. Therefore, all they have to do to win and emasculate the United States is kill a few thousand Americans (from a population of 300 million) and they will run like dogs, with their tails between their legs.

I don't believe you hate America. I don't believe the Dems hate America. What I do believe is that you and others who espouse these incredibly naive thoughts, that we can just pull up stakes and leave, are flat out wrong.

A poll. Now that's a great idea. Let's start with President Barzani.

Sorry MM,

But if the Iraqis are so glad for us being there and all; how about that personal responsibility card that the GOP love to pull? I do think that if all the Iraqis were all hot over this democracy bit they could make an end to these attacks-at least to the point where one could safely drive to the Baghdad Airport-from the Green Zone a few miles away.

On the otherhand with the media machines that only sells sex and fear-it's not surprising that we don't hear such things now is it?

But if what we're doing is good, as we are doing it-and the Iraqis (in general @ least) want us there--then how come Iraq is more of a mess-now that we've been there for 2 yrs, as opposed to just after the invasion?

Sorry MM,

But if the Iraqis are so glad for us being there and all; how about that personal responsibility card that the GOP love to pull? I do think that if all the Iraqis were all hot over this democracy bit they could make an end to these attacks-at least to the point where one could safely drive to the Baghdad Airport-from the Green Zone a few miles away.
On the otherhand with the media machines that only sells sex and fear-it's not surprising that we don't hear such things now is it?

But if what we're doing is good, as we are doing it-and the Iraqis (in general @ least) want us there--then how come Iraq is more of a mess-now that we've been there for 2 yrs, as opposed to just after the invasion?
Maybe because the attacks are coming from Jordanians, Syrians, Iranians, Egyptians and other "ians" who don't want to see Democracy? How about because the attacks are coming from Saddam loyalists?

Gen David Petraeus, former commander of the 101st Airborne and, until recently, in charge of training Iraqi security forces, tells us that the Iraqi security forces trained to fight number 230,000, well on the way to their goal of 325,000.

As to it being more of a mess now than two years ago, if you believe that an independent (now) people exercising their right of self governance through free and open elections where there were none prior to invasion is a "mess", well I guess I can't talk you out of that one. I guess you just believe that this "democracy bit" you describe is OK for you, but not for others. Now THAT'S an open mind.

Maybe because the attacks are coming from Jordanians, Syrians, Iranians, Egyptians and other "ians" who don't want to see Democracy? How about because the attacks are coming from Saddam loyalists?
The same people who told us back a year ago that there were 33 *divisions* combat ready?

Dig down a few threads MM--I posted a BBC article on a study that showed that only a small fraction of those commiting the attacks are from outside Iraq--also very few insurgents captured have been foreigners.

mess-well there are more people dying in Iraq now than just expost invasion. Also-there's no reason to suspect that any of this will last-and make it worth $200+ billion of Your tax dollars.

I have to agree with Snake on this...the patriots who founded the US did so against the most powerful military in the world at the time, and changed the way battles were fought. There are some similarities, the british fought in line formations and were unaccustomed to the patriots fight and hide tactics. BUT, the american patriot fought for freedom and not for martyrdom...he would never have condoned attacks on innocents or civilians. So there are some similarities, but not many.

Yes, but boiled down to the basics, as you originally stated it, it's a mirror image.

What's going on now in Iraq more closely resembles what the then Soviet Union tried to do in Afghanistan at the end of the 70's and into the 80's. Of course, we were the ones fueling the 'insurgency' with our Stinger missles which turned the conflict in favor of the insurgent mujahadeen, starring Osama Bin Laden. Funny how the world can work upside down. Oh yes - their failure in Afghanistan exposed the USSR as not being the fearsome military threat that we spent years convincing ourselves they were. Toto pulled the curtain away, and the the 'big' power stumbled out as a fraud.

Yes, but boiled down to the basics, as you originally stated it, it's a mirror image.

What's going on now in Iraq more closely resembles what the then Soviet Union tried to do in Afghanistan at the end of the 70's and into the 80's. Of course, we were the ones fueling the 'insurgency' with our Stinger missles which turned the conflict in favor of the insurgent mujahadeen, starring Osama Bin Laden. Funny how the world can work upside down. Oh yes - their failure in Afghanistan exposed the USSR as not being the fearsome military threat that we spent years convincing ourselves they were. Toto pulled the curtain away, and the the 'big' power stumbled out as a fraud.

Not a good parallel. The soviets went into Afghanistan to prop up a communist government. They started by burning Mosques and banning pretty much all cultural expression. By destroying the religious symbols and traditions, they alienated themselves from just about the entire country with the exception of Kabul which they governed through fear. The Soviets viewed Afghanistan as key to controlling Southern Asia and didn't invade based on a threat to their nation's security or that of the surrounding countries. Afghanistan was never more than a collection of tribes, bombing them into the stone age would take a couple of cherry bombs. Iraq was a modern country with advanced communications, airports, infrastructure, and several different ethnic groups. We intentionally avoided any religious structures during combat and even when insurgents holed up in Mosques, we made every attempt to get them out. As a nation we are tolerant of all religions, moreso than any country in the world. For example, we would never ban the wearing of headscarfs by muslim women. Look what that did for France.

Not a good parallel. The soviets went into Afghanistan to prop up a communist government. They started by burning Mosques and banning pretty much all cultural expression. By destroying the religious symbols and traditions, they alienated themselves from just about the entire country with the exception of Kabul which they governed through fear. The Soviets viewed Afghanistan as key to controlling Southern Asia and didn't invade based on a threat to their nation's security or that of the surrounding countries. Afghanistan was never more than a collection of tribes, bombing them into the stone age would take a couple of cherry bombs. Iraq was a modern country with advanced communications, airports, infrastructure, and several different ethnic groups. We intentionally avoided any religious structures during combat and even when insurgents holed up in Mosques, we made every attempt to get them out. As a nation we are tolerant of all religions, moreso than any country in the world. For example, we would never ban the wearing of headscarfs by muslim women. Look what that did for France.

You've touched upon a sticky issue between our culture and Islam - women's place in society. It's a problem we should not underestimate as we push democracy onto them. There's some big, big differences in how each culture sees the answers, and we really ought to think hard before we push hard our way of living onto them. It's trouble.

Despite what you pointed out, it would be a mistake to ignore the many important similarities, such as culture clash, occupation, opposition, etc. You mention that the USSR saw strategic advantages in controlling Afghanistan and that immediate security was not the issue behind the invasion. One could similarly argue that the USA saw strategic advantages in controlling Iraq's oil resources and that the security threat was nothing more than a smokescreen and a convenient excuse to justify invasion.

It was reported the other day that only 700 Iraqi troops are ready to fight without US direction.

You conveniently forget the Saudis crossing the border. However, why are the insurgents being caught overwhelmingly home-grown?

And finally, according to polls, 80% of the Iraqis want us out.

It was reported the other day that only 700 Iraqi troops are ready to fight without US direction.

You conveniently forget the Saudis crossing the border. However, why are the insurgents being caught overwhelmingly home-grown?

And finally, according to polls, 80% of the Iraqis want us out.

If Saudis are crossing the border, why are all the fighters Iraqi? I think your sources may be a bit biased and unrealistic. As for the US direction, that is to be expected. As I said before, there have been numerous problems, not the least of which has been infiltration and treachery in the ranks of the Iraqi recruits. There are many more units fighting with US oversight. You conveniently ignore that truth. Most of the deaths in Iraq are Iraqis. These casualties are the direct resuolt of the insurgents, in most cases they are civilian and intentional. Iraqi police and military also die at a higher ration than US troops. That indicates wider participation than your side is willing to acknowledge.

I'm not so sure your polls are accurate.

just the wa y boy george is gonna do it: declare that everything's fine, the iraqis are now capable of protecting their own country, and get the hell out. mission accomplished.

and then watch all hell break loose.

If Saudis are crossing the border, why are all the fighters Iraqi?Prove that all the insurgents are Iraqis.

There are many more units fighting with US oversight. You conveniently ignore that truth. Most of the deaths in Iraq are Iraqis. These casualties are the direct resuolt of the insurgents, in most cases they are civilian and intentional. Iraqi police and military also die at a higher ration than US troops. That indicates wider participation than your side is willing to acknowledge.First of all, how about posting some statistics to prove your point? Secondly, why such a pathetic number of trained Iraqi troops after all this time???

I'm not so sure your polls are accurate.It's "hard work" to find a poll that would substantiate your snakebitten position.

Prove that all the insurgents are Iraqis.

First of all, how about posting some statistics to prove your point? Secondly, why such a pathetic number of trained Iraqi troops after all this time???

It's "hard work" to find a poll that would substantiate your snakebitten position.

What I base my statement on is the interview with General Abuzaid(sp) right after teh claim of one combat ready division was made. Perhaps he was lieing but most likely not. He says the Iraqi soldiers are performing well and it was from him I got the information as to the makeup of the Iraqi divisions.

I am not poll driven. I watch as things develope and decide for myself what makes sense, you seldom do. Logic plays a large role in what I believe.

It has never been my contention that all the insurgents are Iraqi. I was replying to the statement that all of the recently captured insurgents are Iraqi, illogical to my mind. If that was not your statement, backtrack through this aregument and you will find who made it.

What I base my statement on is the interview with General Abuzaid(sp) right after teh claim of one combat ready division was made. Perhaps he was lieing but most likely not. He says the Iraqi soldiers are performing well and it was from him I got the information as to the makeup of the Iraqi divisions.So if they're performing so well, why can't we within six months pull back to the periphery as Murtha argues?

I am not poll driven. I watch as things develope and decide for myself what makes sense, you seldom do. Logic plays a large role in what I believe.You're about as logical as a bull chasing a toreador's red cape.

It has never been my contention that all the insurgents are Iraqi. I was replying to the statement that all of the recently captured insurgents are Iraqi, illogical to my mind. If that was not your statement, backtrack through this aregument and you will find who made it.It was reported in a recent border action, that all apprehended insurgents were Iraqi, which I posted. It doesn't mean they all are or that I believe that they all are; our presence and actions, however, have done a great job developing a home-grown insurgency.

So if they're performing so well, why can't we within six months pull back to the periphery as Murtha argues?

You're about as logical a bull chasing a toreador's red cape.

It was reported in a recent border action, that all apprehended insurgents were Iraqi, which I posted. It doesn't mean they all are or that I believe that they all are; our presence and actions, however, have done a great job developing a home-grown insurgency.

What periphery do you suggest, you and the Congressman?

The one good thing that is coming from this discussion and blood letting
on the Hill is the recognition that following that plan is lunacy.

The one good thing that is coming from this discussion and blood letting
on the Hill is the recognition that following that plan is lunacy.
As is this whole 'stay the course' and kick back/relax w/o planning for anything ideology.

I don't see how we can *win* (whatever that means since that's been re-defined about 400 times in the last 2years) in any long term Snake.

As is this whole 'stay the course' and kick back/relax w/o planning for anything ideology.

I don't see how we can *win* (whatever that means since that's been re-defined about 400 times in the last 2years) in any long term Snake.

I don't know, Bubba, but we can sure as hell lose.

What periphery do you suggest, you and the Congressman?In places where they will be ready to act but not be sitting targets.



Here's the Murtha resolution: Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";


Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.



The one good thing that is coming from this discussion and blood letting on the Hill is the recognition that following that plan is lunacy.As opposed to the lunatic "plan" this administration implemented when it invaded Iraq? And, please explain the reception on the Hill you describe.

GWB shoulda done a little research on Iraq prior to invading. It has been reported that AFTER the invasion he needed to have explained to him the differences between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

Uh, V? A few million of them were Bathists. They are out of power and trying to regain power. They will slaughter many to regain control. Should we allow that to happen? Don't you think the deaths and shattered lives of wounded Americans would then be in vain if we let that occur? You make it sound like they are on a noble cause trying to expel an occupier intent on enslaving their people and stealing their riches.

Won't don't you provide us with examples of insurgencies that have been militarily defeated.

The GWB administration should be providing Congress with a full accounting of their plan, how it is proceeding, and their ultimate goals. They should outline the cost, budget for it, and give a fair estimate of the number of troops they will need to accomplish their goals.

Uh, V? A few million of them were Bathists. They are out of power and trying to regain power. They will slaughter many to regain control. Should we allow that to happen? Don't you think the deaths and shattered lives of wounded Americans would then be in vain if we let that occur? You make it sound like they are on a noble cause trying to expel an occupier intent on enslaving their people and stealing their riches.
If,as you say there are 'a few million Baathists' out there hell bent on killing----then why the hell is our military sitting around (for the most part)? It seems to me that we're killing/capturing a few a day (on average) @ that rate Iraq will be safe in oh.....a few thousand years--but hey 'We must stay the course' must we not?:rolleyes:

Steam-it's going to happen sooner or later anyway-unless the Iraqis get off the collective @$$e$ and via action say that they've had enough---so far all I've seen is a 'let them handle it' attitude. This ain't gonna work unless it's grass roots mehthinks.

Yes it needs to be a committed effort on the part of the Iraqis. I believe that is coming. You have to remember they have lived in fear of Saddam and the Bathists for decades. The Iraqis are lining up to enlist in the army, police and other security forces. They get killed while standing in line, yet the lines still form again. Don't you people ever think positively? Do you ever root for the good guys? You do know we are the good guys, don't you?

Won't don't you provide us with examples of insurgencies that have been militarily defeated.

The GWB administration should be providing Congress with a full accounting of their plan, how it is proceeding, and their ultimate goals. They should outline the cost, budget for it, and give a fair estimate of the number of troops they will need to accomplish their goals.

I would like to see more communication from this adminstration. I would like to hear from them when we are doing well, how we are approaching the problems and where we are heading from this point. The definition you are demanding is not possible, given the fluidity and adaptability of the enemy we are fighting. They are like smoke in many cases and our tactics and efforts also have to adapt.

The information that I would welcome would also be of great value to the insurgents. Whata ya gonna do?

The facts on the ground are precisely what anti-war critics predicted, and what the Bushies and his pro-war supporters assured the American public would NOT happen. Now that their predictions of a "cakewalk" and the spreading of democracy is being proved wrong, and that our presence there is increasing violence, regional instability, and global terrorism, they want to use their failures as a justification to stay. Very interesting indeed.

I heard it when Muthra described it and it sucked then and it sucks now. It is a cop out. There is no place"over the horizon" to stage enough power to ever interven in Iraq in any manner that would be effective. He is a military man and knows that. What he advocates is quitting. He is not a coward, he is just tired but he knows what his "plan" actually stands for. There is no way to quit with honor short of victory, however that is defined. We live with the shame of the way we left Vietnam but not with a threat from those people. What we would live with in this case is never ending attacks on our interests abroad or at home if we didn't get the message the first time. I don't want to live that way. Neither would Muthra. You are clueless.

Clued-in Snakebit, flailingly defending all comers.

Why don't you cite a few examples of insurgencies that have been defeated by an occupying power?

High unemployment has fed both those long lines and the strength of the insurgency.

in the line of fire in a civil / ethnic war that will last for decades or centuries.
ya just don't tell folks who've hated each other for generations, okay democracy,nobody fight when the minority group has been in control and maintained it with an iron fist.

I'm sorry, I just can't stand it anymore......................
.."you just slip out the back, jack, make a new plan, Stan, you don't need to be coy, Roy, just get yourself freeeeeeee."

So why don't you go to Iraq and open a McDonald's or something to help out the unemployment situation?

Come on. Are you serious? Of course there's high unemployment. There is high unemployment throughout the ME. Do you think if we leave that will help the employment issue? I don't think so and neither do you. I heard a Marine who just returned on the radio today. He said the people in Iraq with businesses and/or something to lose, don't want us going anywhere. Kinda' makes sense that the people who have a means of support, who buy consumer goods and who can also employ others, don't believe they would be better off without our security present. The only people who want us to leave are the thugs. Which side are you on?

You're right, every move the GWB administration has made in Iraq has gone well, has demonstrated their superior forethought about Iraq and the ME. What was I thinking?

Please post a link to the transcript and let us know on which show this marine appeared.

It doesn't make sense to you that people in Iraq with something to lose fear that anarchy will ensue if we pull out and the Iraq government and military aren't ready to survive on their own? How long did we stay in Europe and Japan after the war?

If you must know, while driving to the hardware store I had Rush on. The Marine was a caller to his show. He claimed that when they were leaving and being replaced with another unit, the people in the town looked sad to see them leaving and concerned for their safety because there would be a learning curve for the new deploys. That too makes sense.

Now you can make your claim that the caller was a fake. Come to think of it, he kinda' sounded like W :D

Oh, by the way, the generals of our military, you know the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they make the battle plans and such. Not Bush. Not Cheney. Not Rummy. You heard of a place called the Pentagon?

Thanks for making me laugh out loud!

Don't forget GWB is our President, and the President is the Commander-in-Chief, the one that incited our enemies by saying "Bring 'Em On!"

Don't want to answer the questions I see.

Don't want to answer the questions I see.Ask this administration to answer these questions. They made these problems by not listening to anti-war critics who said it would come to this. They had their heads in the clouds promising the American people that Iraq would be a cinch not a noose. They spent their political capital, and our taxpayer dollars, very, very badly.

Come to what? Libs cryin' like babies? Yeah we all knew that would happen. We also knew there would be trouble and it would take time, yes even years to allow to work. Bush said that in the very beginning. He said the war on terror wouldn't be won overnight. You have a short memory.

Come to what? Libs cryin' like babies? Yeah we all knew that would happen. We also knew there would be trouble and it would take time, yes even years to allow to work. Bush said that in the very beginning. He said the war on terror wouldn't be won overnight. You have a short memory.
He didn't say that...

He said Iraq would be quick, easy, pay for itself, etc---and on all those he's been wrong.

please pay attn. Steam

Why don't you post that quote for us. You know www.whitehouse.gov? I don't think you'll find that anywhere. He said it would be a long haul to fight terrorism.

Why don't you post that quote for us. You know www.whitehouse.gov? (http://www.whitehouse.gov?) I don't think you'll find that anywhere. He said it would be a long haul to fight terrorism.
Give me a bit Steam-I need to think up search phrases for Google (so I don'tcome up with a zillion hits)--do you just want GWB-or will Rummy/Cheney be good 'nuff?

Why don't you post that quote for us. You know www.whitehouse.gov? (http://www.whitehouse.gov?) I don't think you'll find that anywhere. He said it would be a long haul to fight terrorism.
BTW-Steam how many companies do you know of that openly post incriminanting/bad looking material on their website?

Do you think whitehouse.gov has "Way to Go Brownie" on it? (I might be surprised by that-but oh well)

Even the Iraqi leaders are urging a timetable.

Iraqi Leaders Urge a Timetable for Eventual Troop Withdrawal
Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Iraqi leaders, meeting at a reconciliation conference in Cairo, urged an end to violence in the country and demanded a timetable for the withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aDLgOBgqARvw&refer=top_world_news

Everything the president says is archived. Heck go to your favorite anarchist site. I am still confident he said we would be fighting terrorism for a long time and it would come at a cost.

Uh so have our commanders. No one ever said we would be or even wanted to be there for ever. I know that CNN says it's due to pressure from the libs, but you know that is BS. Bush called for a plan to be drawn up after the elections took place.

Defense official: Rumsfeld given Iraq withdrawal plan Plan calls for troops to begin pulling out after December elections

<!-- date --> <script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript"> <!-- if ( location.hostname.toLowerCase().indexOf( "edition." ) != -1 ) { document.write('Saturday, November 19, 2005 Posted: 0434 GMT (1234 HKT)'); }else { document.write('Friday, November 18, 2005; Posted: 11:34 p.m. EST (04:34 GMT)'); } //--> </script> Friday, November 18, 2005; Posted: 11:34 p.m. EST (04:34 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The top U.S. commander in Iraq has submitted a plan to the Pentagon for withdrawing troops in Iraq, according to a senior defense official.

Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades -- usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each -- begin pulling out of Iraq early next year.

He said the war on terror would be basically infinite. However, re Iraq, it's easiest to post a snapshot of Administration comments.

Yeah I know you get your information from cartoons, but the rest of us literate people generally use books and newspapers and such :D Nice try. Got anything better? LOL!!!

Yeah, we have an idea about the kinds of reading you do!

When I have time, I may post the paragraphs and endless pages representing to the American public what a "cakewalk" Iraq was going to be as soon as we found those WMDs. But those are actual quotes re Iraq. Tom Tomorrow didn't just make them up.

Please don't confuse them with facts ;)

Yeah, we have an idea about the kinds of reading you do!

When I have time, I may post the paragraphs and endless pages representing to the American public what a "cakewalk" Iraq was going to be as soon as we found those WMDs. But those are actual quotes re Iraq. Tom Tomorrow didn't just make them up.

The actual war was short and relatively easy. The insurgency, though initially led by one or two Iraqi warlord/clerics, has been taken over by outside forces, Al Qeada, and has become a changing and fluid situation. This is the war on terror that he stood in the rubble of 9/11 and told us was going to be a long hard fight. Sadly for the Iraqi people it is there but it would have been Afghanistan or elsewhere if not there.

I can tell you feel real bad that GWB transplanted terrorism to Iraq.

Please don't confuse them with facts ;)
Sorry for being a little late (V hit most of the ones I thought of but)...but here a a few...

CLAIM: Iraq will be “ an affordable endeavor (http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=%22affordable+endeavor%22+entous&sub=Search&ei=UTF-8&url=CKDZDJO6NQEJ:www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2003/04/11/rtr937797.html) ” that “ will not require sustained aid (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1842094) ” and will “be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion (http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/2_whitehouse.html) .” – Budget Director Mitch Daniels [Forbes 4/11/03, W. Post 3/28/03, NY Times 1/2/03, respectively]

CLAIM: “Costs of any such intervention would be very small.” - Top White House Economist Glen Hubbard [CNBC, 10/4/02]

CLAIM: Paul Wolfowitz “dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year.” [NY Times, 2/28/03 (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm) ]

CLAIM: “In terms of the American taxpayers contribution, [$1.7 billion] is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries and Iraqi oil revenues…The American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.” – USAID Director Andrew Natsios, 4/23/03 (http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/nightline_042403_t.html)


CLAIM: “The oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” – Paul Wolfowitz, [Congressional Testimony, 3/27/03]

CLAIM: “Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.” – White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer, 2/18/03 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030218-4.html)

I can tell you feel real bad that GWB transplanted terrorism to Iraq.

Well they could have chosen to continue the fight in Afghanistan but I guess the upside of a country rich in energy was a lure for them. Yeah, the greedy cynical bastards are probably after the oil. They're not even Texans neither and they had all that dope in Afghanistan. Greedy bastards.

What's driving this? 2006 mid-term elections.

Yeah? So? This is related to the reconstruction not the prosecution of the war. Want to re-read your post? Get back to me when you find something that has Bush saying this would be a cakewalk or easy task as you all claim he said. That is what we were talking about. Not how much it would cost.

Yeah? So? This is related to the reconstruction not the prosecution of the war. Want to re-read your post? Get back to me when you find something that has Bush saying this would be a cakewalk or easy task as you all claim he said. That is what we were talking about. Not how much it would cost.
"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." —President Bush, discussing the Iraq war with Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, after Robertson told him he should prepare the American people for casualties (Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49088-2004Oct20.html))

"Had we to do it over again, we would look at the consequences of catastrophic success, being so successful so fast that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped and lived to fight another day." —President Bush, telling Time magazine that he underestimated the Iraqi resistance, Aug. 2004 (Source (http://www.time.com/time/asia/mediakit/pr/article/0%2C17540%2C690817%2C00.html))

"My answer is bring 'em on." —President George W. Bush, challenging militants attacking U.S. forces in Iraq, July 2, 2003 (Source (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/02/sprj.nitop.bush/))

"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." --Vice President Dick Cheney, on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005 (Source (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/))

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." –Vice President Dick Cheney, "Meet the Press," March 16, 2003 (Source (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3403519/))

"F**k Saddam, we're taking him out." –President Bush to three U.S. Senators in March 2002, a full year before the Iraq invasion (Source (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2835.htm))

"Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things." –Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on looting in Iraq after the U.S. invasion, adding "stuff happens," April 11, 2003 (Source (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/11/sprj.irq.pentagon/))

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." –President Bush, standing under a "Mission Accomplished" banner on the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier, May 2, 2003 (Source (http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/20203.htm))

"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine." –Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the House Budget Committee prior to the Iraq war, Feb. 27, 2003 (Source (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/031124fa_fact1_c))

"From a marketing point of view, you don't roll out new products in August." --White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, on why the Bush administration waited until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on war against Iraq, "New York Times" interview, Sept. 7, 2002 (Source (http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/saddam/))

Nice try. I have to give you credit for at least trying. However, some of the sources are, well, kinda' shakey. Besides they they still don't make your point. The Pat Robertson thing is way out there. Love that Kerry jumped on that one. Still didn't read anything here that has Bush stating before the war started, that it would be short and easy.

Nice try. I have to give you credit for at least trying. However, some of the sources are, well, kinda' shakey..CNN, Time, Washington Post... Let me guess, if it's not on Newsmax, or the official WH website, it can't be true.

Pat Robertson thing is way out there.And he's a key part of your constituency.

What is driving it for the libs? 2006/2008 partisanship? Nice way to divide a country!

No, but the Information Clearing House? He also didn't post anything of what was germane to the conversation. He just posted some sound bites he finds something wrong with. Cheney says the insurgents are in their last throws back in June. Maybe he's right. Maybe he isn't. Time will prove that one way or another.

The core issue is, should we withdraw the troops and leave Iraq to sink or swim. I say it's in our interests to see to it they succeed. That success helps our interests on many levels, and primarily from a national security perspective, but I am not sure you are capable of understanding that ;)

The core issue is, should we withdraw the troops and leave Iraq to sink or swim. I say it's in our interests to see to it they succeed. That success helps our interests on many levels, and primarily from a national security perspective, but I am not sure you are capable of understanding that ;)
I say we dust off and nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Yessiree, we've cornered the opium trade and the oil biz.

Yeah I know you get your information from cartoons, but the rest of us literate people generally use books and newspapers and such :D Nice try. Got anything better? LOL!!!

read any good articles from republican teenagers lately?

imbecile.

imbecile I know you are but what am I? LOL!!! What a child you are! LOL!!!

I know you are but what am I? LOL!!! What a child you are! LOL!!!

that's funny, coming from a guy who just typed,"i know you are but what am i?"

your republican teen given you any new talking points yet?

Very simple. Conduct a survey of Iraqis asking: should the USA stay or should it leave? One or the other. Nothing halfway.

If as I think they will say, get the hell out, then we honor their wishes and get the hell out. Whatever happens there afterwards is their problem to solve. We'll leave having succeeded in the original objectives of booting Sadaam out, making sure there were no WMD's, and giving the Iraqi people a chance at self-government. It's their responsibility to make it or break it. We'll hope for the best and be there to advise as needed, but if they botch it up, they botch it up.

PLAN B: Carpet bomb the entire country killing everybody, in order to be sure that we get the bad guys and gals, whoever the hell they are.


Is it too late to some extent on the shame part?

PLAN B: Carpet bomb the entire country killing everybody, in order to be sure that we get the bad guys and gals, whoever the hell they are.

I sort of like Plan B.

I sort of like Plan B.
It is kinda anti-climactic though isn't it?

I sort of like Plan B.


Kill them all and let Allah sort'm out.