<OFFTOPIC>And there's a thread about suing Al Gore for fraud for being factually correct, but somehow people find a way to apologize Bush's Iraq fraud away.</OFFTOPIC>

According to Richard Cheney, we went into Iraq because of the clear connection Iraq and Saddam Hussein had to Osama bin Forgotten. According to Mrs Condi Rice, we went in so that Iraq's WMD a bomb wouldn't be used against us on American soil. Something about a mushroom cloud, in case anyone on the planet can't remember.

More Americans have died in the Iraq desert than in all of September 11. As Bush goes on about the progress we're making, the 4,000th soldier milestone has been passed. Some arch Republicans are still saying we should stay in Iraq until every eligible American has died there - all the while the Taliban is regaining control in too many parts of Afghanistan.

Clinton got us into the war in Kosovo. It lasted months, while Iraq is now a 5 year old war. Not even 1 American solider died in Kosovo, nor did America loose her respect and integrity world wide over torture and "extra ordinary rendition" to secret Gulags hidden across Eastern Europe. Bush has so far lost 4,000 of our people in a war without end in Iraq, that will live on after Bush finally leaves into the sunset of his dark legacy in 2009. Bush is amazingly incompetent compared to Clinton, in economy and in military - the the military failure at GWB's hand is the spectacular kind that will be remembered in history classes.

In honor of their sacrifice, we should immediately withdraw all remaining troops from Iraq, even if that means Al Queda setting up permanent shop there to launch attacks on western civilization. After all, nothing says you died for nothing like running from the battlefield before the battle is over. Very Clintonesque, in a Somalia way.

Originally Posted by cbwm

In honor of their sacrifice, we should immediately withdraw all remaining troops from Iraq, even if that means Al Queda setting up permanent shop there to launch attacks on western civilization.

The Iraqi's don't like Al Queda. What makes you think they would let them set up shop there? The U.S. says it has trained a couple hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers plus policeman. Can't they handle it? Or why is it that the U.S. isn't putting enough political pressure on the Shia to reach a reasonable political solution with the Sunni and Kurds?

Originally Posted by cbwm

After all, nothing says you died for nothing like running from the battlefield before the battle is over. Very Clintonesque, in a Somalia way.

Or Reaganesque in a Lebanese way.

Originally Posted by joder

The Iraqi's don't like Al Queda. What makes you think they would let them set up shop there?

The Iraqis might not encourage it, but they'd likely have a hard time stopping it. Also, Al Queda is not the only organazation that is trying to setup shop in Iraq....

Originally Posted by joder

The U.S. says it has trained a couple hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers plus policeman. Can't they handle it?

If they all worked together and there was no corruption, then they could easily handle it. The reality of the situation though, is that they can't handle it, are dealing with huge corruption problems, and are just not at a point where they can stand up. They are improving and there numbers are growing though. It's just going to take more time.

Originally Posted by joder

Or why is it that the U.S. isn't putting enough political pressure on the Shia to reach a reasonable political solution with the Sunni and Kurds?

You do realize that the Sunni/Shia/Kurd in fighting goes back farther than the USA has been a country, right? This isn't Dems vs. Republicans, this is a deeply divided idealogical conflict. It's going to take more than a few nice words to get the fighting to end. Political pressure helps, but you can only change so much so fast.

Success will simply take more time. Although 4,000 deaths is not a small number, and every single one is a tragedy, as far as "wars" go, it's a drop in the pool. If you want some perspective on 4,000 dead in 5 years, take a look at how many died in the first 5 days at Iwo Jima.

DISCLAIMER: The above is purely opinion and if you consider any of the above fact, you should consult authoritive sources and make up your own opinion.

Originally Posted by joder

Or Reaganesque in a Lebanese way.

Not really. The death toll in Lebanon was staggering and withdrawal was based on the end of support from the local government. Clinton, on the other hand, ran from Somalia after the first pitched battle with U.S. casualties, even though the U.S. unquestionably dominated the battlefield. It sent a clear message to anyone interested in engaging t he U.S. military. Inflict a few casualties, and we run.

Originally Posted by mork29

If they all worked together and there was no corruption, then they could easily handle it. The reality of the situation though, is that they can't handle it, are dealing with huge corruption problems, and are just not at a point where they can stand up.

I'm lost ... are you talking about the government of Iraq, or the Bush government?

Originally Posted by cbwm

Not really. The death toll in Lebanon was staggering and withdrawal was based on the end of support from the local government.

"After all, nothing says 'you died for nothing' like running from the battlefield before the battle is over."

Reagan had a choice, ask congress for permission to go to war in Lebanon, or bail out after the government who we supported abdicated. Right or wrong, he chose not to go to war. Maybe it was because congress would not have approved it. Maybe it was because the Cold War was already costing us so much. Maybe it was because there was no politically viable outcome for a victorious occupation. Maybe it was all of the above. None of the above reasoning currently applies to Iraq.

I mentioned the casualty count to contrast with the cowardly acts of Clinton in Mogadishu, not as the driving reason Regan pulled out of Lebanon. The Beirut military barracks bombing alone killed 245 U.S. servicemen, yet Regan stuck it out until the political situation held no light at the end of the tunnel. In contrast, 17 U.S. Servicemen were lost in a pitched battle in Mogadishu which killed between 133 (by the enemy's accounting) and 1500 enemy combatants. Regardless of the overwhelming victory, Clinton showed he had no spine, packed up, and left.

First of all, we went to war, this is not “Bush’s’ war! You have to laugh when you think of the liberal notion that Bush somehow tricked us into going to war but is also the stupidest man alive. At the time the decision was made to go to war, the majority of America was in favor of it, and the senate was too. Let’s go one further, if this is “Bush’s war” and no one else, then all the legislature branch (which is controlled by liberals) has to do is cut all funding for the war.

Even though I don’t (and didn’t for that matter) think that we should have went over there in the first place, we are there now and the worst thing we can do is just leave. We are not talking about a Vietnam type war; there are people there who want to take over who want to do great harm to great harm to America.

The point is, U.S. Marines were killed by terrorists in Lebanon and Reagan did nothing except launch a few shells.

cbwm, you act like it's some match between Clinton/Reagan/Bush or Republican/Democrat. Of course, you think Democrat bad, Republican good. But have you considered that both are wrong?

I have considered that, and I can agree that they both(Democrat and Republican alike) often are wrong. I think we (Lead by Dubya) were wrong to go to war in Iraq. Like many, I think that now but didn't think that when we first went. I also think that if Iraq continues to worsen, as it has in the last few days, to the point where no good outcome appears achievable, we should withdraw rather than waste American blood and treasure on a lost cause.

What I strongly disagree with are the mis-representations, smear campaigns, and lies spoken as truth about "Bush's war" in an effort to gain an immediate withdrawal from Iraq while a positive outcome is still viable. We can debate the rightness or wrongness of our presence in Somalia, Lebanon, or Iraq, or the failure to appear in Rwanda, but it seems logical to not try an undermine an action in progress. It seems like many on the left are almost rooting for failure in Iraq, just so they can blame it on Bush or the Republicans. I cant think of anything more stupid or self destructive as a nation.

It is an inherent weakness, or strength depending how you look at it, of free speech in a free nation. Your enemy's talking points and propaganda get as much air time as those delivered by your country's leadership. After not much time at all, the nation as a whole weakens, as if infected by that line of thinking, and looses its will to fight, regardless of the consequences of loosing. It happened in Vietnam, as people two degrees of separation from Communist leadership whom we were at war with, people like John Kerry, fabricated stories and presented them as fact directly to congress in an effort to weaken our resolve from within. Don't think the students of history weren't paying attention.

Edit: Also, regarding Reagan and Lebanon vs Clinton and Somalia, I would stand by the logic of abandoning a lost cause vs abandoning a military effort because of a few casualties. If, as president, you don't set the bar fairly high as to what will cause you to withdraw from an engagement, you undermine the ability of the U.S. to use the military as a tool of strength to negotiate diplomatic and peaceful solutions.

One thing that needs to be considered is Iraq is in a civil war. There are very few Al-Queda in Iraq. Mostly it is Shia and Sunni fighting each other. The Shia are the majority and are the majority in the government but it will never work until they include the Sunni (and Kurds). But the current Shia government is unwilling. So, at the present, we are just fighting the participants in a civil war.

People can say, give it time. But when zero political progress is being made, time can stretch on to forever.

Originally Posted by joder

But when zero political progress is being made, time can stretch on to forever.

Thank god there have been large political strides made in the last few months. Of course Obama and Hillary want you to ignore that so we can get on with the failure and withdrawal. Like I said, rooting for failure to serve a political agenda. Truly despicable.

Originally Posted by joder

There are very few Al-Queda in Iraq.

Your source for this? Yeh there is civil strife, but there are a large number of foreign fighters in Iraq. They've converged on the place like flies attracted to poop. Not to mention the huge influx of Iranian money, training, and support.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Your source for this? Yeh there is civil strife, but there are a large number of foreign fighters in Iraq. They've converged on the place like flies attracted to poop. Not to mention the huge influx of Iranian money, training, and support.

Your source for Al Queda? There is some Al Queda there but not before 2003.

Foreign fighters certainly since Iraq is a country which as part of the Middle East and is not divided by racial or ethnic lines. Shia are in Iraq and Iran, Sunni in Iraq and the Saudi Peninsula. They come to fight for their brethren and against their enemies.

Iran doesn't like Al Queda. They have different agendas.

Originally Posted by joder

Your source for Al Queda? There is some Al Queda there but not before 2003.

This is what I talk about when I say misleading statements to support a position. Not that it is relevant, but documentation confiscated from Sadam indicated their knowledge of Al Queda presence prior to the invasion. That is not under dispute. There simply is no evidence to connecting Sadam to them. Back on topic, my question to you was what is your source for information saying "There are very few Al-Queda in Iraq". I've seen lots of data to the contrary, and literally nothing to support that statement.

Originally Posted by joder

Foreign fighters certainly since Iraq is a country which as part of the Middle East and is not divided by racial or ethnic lines.

No it is a country divided by religious lines. If it were divided by no lines at all, filled with white Christians, with neighboring peaceful Kuwait filled with white Christians as well, that would somehow make it an act of brotherhood for the Kuwaitis to come in and start beheading people and training in IEDs and terror tactics?

Why make it something it isn't? Nobody argues that Al Queda has had a major presence in Iraq.

Originally Posted by joder

Iran doesn't like Al Queda. They have different agendas.

They have the same agenda, just different religious affiliations. They are both working at killing Americans, and they both hate Israel. At least we can agree Iran operating in Iraq right now.

Originally Posted by cbwm

After all, nothing says you died for nothing like running from the battlefield before the battle is over.

I understand now! Republican policy is determined by what it sounds like to talk to dead people!! Instead of an imaginary conversation going in a way you don't like, why not send another 4,000 Americans to join their brothers in death? Heck, how about 40,000 or 400,000? McCain said he'd be fine with our soliders being in Iraq for 100 years, so that comes to a lot of dead Americans.Anyway, these people didn't die for nothing - they died for Bush's lies.The way you've described Beruit, you could swap out Lebanon for Iraq and be just as accurate. I guess the point is a president with a degenerative brain disease can tell people they died for nothing, but a president with a criminal history can't?

I think we should all hold hands, click our heels, and wish bad people away. That sounds far safer!

I'm going to try doing that with my creditors right now! ......... D*mn, my bills are still there. I guess I'm going to work today. Oh well.

Well, one thing I've noticed since we've begun fighting terrorists in other countries.... is that we haven't had a whole lot of problems with them over here.... I don't think that keeping liquids off of air planes is the only reason either..... Food for thought.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I think we should all hold hands, click our heels, and wish bad people away. That sounds far safer!

I'm going to try doing that with my creditors right now! ......... D*mn, my bills are still there. I guess I'm going to work today. Oh well.

Typical response. Lots of straw man fallacy, not much or any logic. Your argument that Bill Clinton didn't get enough American soldiers killed was at least more interesting.

It seems you believe a boxer can go into the ring, fight and never get hit. Maybe we should only undertake endeavors that are easy.

Originally Posted by cbwm

It seems you believe a boxer can go into the ring, fight and never get hit. Maybe we should only undertake endeavors that are easy.

I think that is a very important point. Everybody was all "for the war" at the beginning. Did people not realize that Soldiers die when they go to war? Now, if the casualties were unusually large, I could imagine people being very upset... but they're actually incredibly low....

Not to mention that the democratic controlled congress could have ended the war by not funding it..... and lets not forget they all voted FOR the invasion. Oh, and don't give me some crap about Bush lying to them. The House and Senate don't blindly follow the president. They have access to the same intelligence information that the President does.