Col, we are still waiting.

Yes, the American Revolution was worth all the lives. If the Iraq people wanted to do the same thing, more power to them. My point is American lives SHOULD NOT have been committed. That task was up to the Iraq people just like it was up to the American colonists. France did not attack England so the Americans could be free. Although we received help from the French, it was only after we took the action in the first place and that is what should of happen in Iraq. We did not need King George W. to send in the American military!

Yes, the American Revolution was worth all the lives. If the Iraq people wanted to do the same thing, more power to them. My point is American lives SHOULD NOT have been committed. That task was up to the Iraq people just like it was up to the American colonists. France did not attack England so the Americans could be free. Although we received help from the French, it was only after we took the action in the first place and that is what should of happen in Iraq. We did not need King George W. to send in the American military

---COL, try logiclly looking at the iraqi peoples situation when hussein was there, he had a large following, if they rose against him, they would have been outnumbered,slaughtered and end of story...we, because of our size and strength,were able to easily invade iraq,controling it is another story...so you see,the iraqi people couldn't have...they lacked the resources...

---COL, try logiclly looking at the iraqi peoples situation when hussein was there

He will never look at anything logically. If it was up to people like him, Saddam would still be in Kuwait also.

The terrorists in Iraq today face a power far greater then Saddam - The United States Military. Look at the problems they create EVERY Day. America faced the worlds greatest power - England in 1776. If the Iraq people wanted to be free of Saddam, it was they, not the United Stades that should have made the sacrifice necessary to free themselves from Saddam Hussein. It was not the responsibility of the United States to free the Iraqis anymore than it is for the United States to free the North Koreans, the Syrians, the Iranians or the peoples dominated by the many despots in Africa. That is a lesson George W. Bush has not learned. If the people of Iraq had risen up against Saddam and then other countries would have provided assistance, there would be a very different picture in Iraq today. We would not be looked on as invaders and occupiers. Bush made a tragic mistake that we can not allow to be repeated in the future!

The news from Iraq is getting messier by the day. The American public was told that once the elections are held peace and quiet will descend on Iraq. (Actually I would like you to point me to where this was said. I think if you check what was said that do not expect the insurgency to stop just because of elections.)

Those opf us who have been follwing that story knew better. Now after 150,000 (point me to your reliable source for this please, because I know you can’t.)

Iraqi lives destroyed, billions of dollars worth of infrastructure destroyed, nearly 2000 US soldiers killed in action (You should always check your facts before you open your mouth and insert foot. The number killed in action as of today is 1349 a bit shy of your 2000, and by the way, every one of them was a precious life.)

and the golbal image of the USA is tatters it is time to reflect on the whole issue. The neo conmen who led the country to war underestimated the power of the Iraqi Resistance. They were not aware that in1922-24 when the British administered Mesopotamia as part of its maNDATED TERRITORY there was hell in store for them at a time when the Iraqi civil society was far less developed than it is today. (I assume you are trying to tell me the Military leaders never read history right? Regret to inform you that the military leaders know more of these matters than you do. )


There is no way this war can be won. (What would you define as winning? Since we have not had another 9/11 attack in the US since 9/11 I would think that as winning myself, but I only live here)

Luttwak is perfectly right when he says that USA must disengage itself from Iraq. Disengagement is not retreat and must not be perceived that way. In the last week alone Bagdad has seen the death of nearly 550 civillians in car bombs and other acts of violence targetted against Iraqi s. (And in the last few months over 1200 terrorist have been captured or killed, tons of explosives found and destroyed, and leaders of terrorist cells taken out of action. Also just a FYI, Iraqi civilians, the ones you say are getting killed, are the ones turning in the terrorist.)

A disturbing trend is that the troops are not being rotated.(WHERE in the world did you get this?? We have gone from nearly 200,000 troops down to less than 130,000. The Iraqi Army now has more than 163,000 troops and 27 active Btns.)


This means that after a tour of duty a soldier who could look forward to spending time with his wife and children can no longer do so.(This is a bold face lie, sorry)

The morale of troops will be affected and more importantly even the top brass of the US army is admitting that the war is bearing down heavily on troop morale. Gen Raggis was chashiered from the US army for telling the truth. (LOL, Sorry, but the troops are reupping in record numbers and asking to go back for multiple tours. In fact my buddy has just gone back for his second tour, at his request!)

At this rate the dreaded draft will be introduced and that is the only way the present level of American engagement can be maintained. (Sorry its not that bad. Hang in there though, you still have global warming to talk about)


As for as the Iraqis taking over the security operations just forget it. The Iraqis are nowhere close to reaching the target. AT THE FIRST SIGN OF GUNNFIRE THE iRAQI FLEES AND THE FEW who stand and fight find that they are usually overlooked for rewards which is cornered by the staff officers close to the Americans. (You may want to view these, http://shadowwar.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=78208,
http://shadowwar.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=77337
http://shadowwar.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=77063
As for the Iraqi’s fleeing and such, that’s blatant crap. Pardon the expression.

Moreover the level of Intellegence of the Iraqi resistance is improving. This spells danger. (And where do you get this crap? In fact the Iraqi people are becoming more and more involved in turning in the terrorist and weapons. Schools are being built, infrastructure being updated and increased. You need to take your hate of the US Government and Bush and temper it with a dose of reality. If you want to see what positive things are going on I invite you to read my blob here on joeuser.)

The Left Wing Media is the ones who are reporting the bad things in Iraq. We have done miracles for the Iraqis. Hmmm. back in World War 2, on the day of June 6th, 1944, we as Americans had lost over 56,000 lives to gain a few miles into the Normandy Coast and that was only ONE day. We have been in Iraq for over 2 years and we have only lost 1,700 lives or so. I believe we are doing a good job for that. You also cannot really stop a road side bomb before they detonate. That is pretty much the only thing that is killing are troops except RPG's. But when those RPG's go off, we kill the shooter.

It was not the responsibility of the United States to free the Iraqis anymore than it is for the United States to free the North Koreans, the Syrians, the Iranians or the peoples dominated by the many despots in Africa. That is a lesson George W. Bush has not learned. If the people of Iraq had risen up against Saddam and then other countries would have provided assistance, there would be a very different picture in Iraq today. We would not be looked on as invaders and occupiers. Bush made a tragic mistake that we can not allow to be repeated in the future!

--One, think about it, the colonies were better off than the iraqi's, they had better economies,etc...

--And so those countries that profited from the Oil for food program...yep, they would have waited...

--Not every one views the US as invaders....and, why sit around and let innocent people be murdered by the thousands...hmmm,kinda like the sudan, yet people are worried about that and bashing bush

The only people who see the US as "bogged down" in Iraq are immature infants who think that every problem that can't be handled in 30 minutes (with time out for station identification and this word from our sponsors").

You can be an infantile whiner if you want, personally, I'll stick with reality.

Reality is, there is more success in Iraq, with fewer casualties than any war of its size and scope in which the U.S. has every been involved.

The quitting idiots who say we need to pull out now would have ended the Revolutionary War, The Civil War, WWI, & WWII in the first couple of years.

Quit being a baby and GROW UP!!!

WE should never have been in the situation of quitting. We SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN Iraq. This is not WWII or the American Revolution. This is a war that Bush wanted and has nothing to do with 9/11 or making America Safer. Bush sold America, Congress and the world a load of S*it!

#61 by COL Gene Friday, June 17, 2005 WE should never have been in the situation of quitting. We SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN Iraq. This is not WWII or the American Revolution. This is a war that Bush wanted and has nothing to do with 9/11 or making America Safer. Bush sold America, Congress and the world a load of S*it!

We get sick and tired of arguing with "your" ignorance. You want to start in yet again as to why we're in Iraq? How many times must you be shown that every itel agency in the "WORLD" believed the WMDs! And do NOT start on the downing street memos. That has not been either proven or verified yet.

WE should never have been in the situation of quitting. We SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN Iraq. This is not WWII or the American Revolution. This is a war that Bush wanted and has nothing to do with 9/11 or making America Safer. Bush sold America, Congress and the world a load of S*it!

I rest my case as I pass Colon Gene his whoobie so he'll stop bawling.

WE should never have been in the situation of quitting. We SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN Iraq. This is not WWII or the American Revolution. This is a war that Bush wanted and has nothing to do with 9/11 or making America Safer. Bush sold America, Congress and the world a load of S*it!

--It is like the colonies if you look at it with the persecuted iraqi's like the colonists,oppressed, without say, and finally when they got a boost,an opportunity, they built a new nation...and what exactly did this have to do with WW2? Also, I doubt it was a war that bush wanted, those who say it was cause oil are a bunch 'o' nuts, the oil production has yet to reach half of its possible productuion, not just because of the attacks, but because,get this, oil isn't considered the most important,OMG! NO WAY! (yes, this is sarcasm, for those who are uninformed).....

We get sick and tired of arguing with "your" ignorance. You want to start in yet again as to why we're in Iraq? How many times must you be shown that every itel agency in the "WORLD" believed the WMDs! And do NOT start on the downing street memos. That has not been either proven or verified yet

--yep

61 by COL Gene

--I give up, i think i'll retire from this "battle" against COL G with a perfect record (imo he has yet to prove his point) Have a martini COL G. [I'm all out of cookies... ]

The majority of Americans agree with me. Only 41% support the Bush policy in Iraq and the White House acknowledged yeaterday that much of the Bush agenda is not being well received by Americans. This was acknowledged by the President's Press Secretary who also said Bush does NOT intent to change his policies. Now if you admit your policies are not what the majority want, why would you "Stay the Course"?

Better read the comments of former Treas Sec Paul O'neil who stated that the Iraq War was a topic at the First Bush Cabinet meeting in 2001. Also the British memo that was released last week clearly show Bush intended to go into Iraq before 9/11. There were others who wanted to attack Iraq and Bush was in the lead! My comment about WWII was to indicate that the Iraq War did not have popular support as did WWII after we were attecked. Saddam never attacked the US and did not have the ability to attack America. Saddam was no real threat to the US even if he had WMD. North Korea has WMD and we did not attack them!

Only third graders decide right and wrong by popularity contests, idiot.

Guess what, we're there. Get over it.

We have two choices now, complete the mission, or wimp out and leave the Iraqi people to terrorists.

I see you are on the side of the terrorists gene.

Why don't you just complete it and fight with them. What's the difference between shooting at our troops or aiding and abetting the enemy with your rhetoric?

You already side with the terrorists. Why don't you be a man and join up with the side you are rooting for?

The Terrorists would not be operating in Iraq if we had not invaded that country. What is the mission? When will Iraq be able to operate without 130,000 American military? Every day the news is the same. If we can not stop the terrorism wirh the massive military we have in place, is it possible to establish order from without? Only the Iraq people can STOP the killing.

The majority of Americans agree with me.

No they don't. I conducted a poll and 98% responded that you don't know what you're talking about.

Sorry. The national polls show 58% do NOT agree with the Bush policy in Iraq. That was on the Sunday Talk shows including CNN. Republicas and Democrats in Congress are talking about a time table to begin removing our troops from Iraq. Wolf Blitzer questioned the the Sec of State about an hour ago on CNN as to the remove of US military from Iraq. Your 98% must all be from the 42% that support the Bush policy in Iraq not the 100% of Americans.

The majority of Americans agree with me. Only 41% support the Bush policy in Iraq and the White House acknowledged yeaterday that much of the Bush agenda is not being well received by Americans. This was acknowledged by the President's Press Secretary who also said Bush does NOT intent to change his policies. Now if you admit your policies are not what the majority want, why would you "Stay the Course"?

--Wow, COL, you got every american to answer to your poll?! Thats amazing,oops, you forgot me, and moderateman,etc... sure YOUR poll says the majority, what majority, anti-bush democrats? Polls are BS, they only sample a small percentage of the entire pop. there are those that do not care for polls,and don't want to answer,there will NEVER be a complete poll...

Better read the comments of former Treas Sec Paul O'neil who stated that the Iraq War was a topic at the First Bush Cabinet meeting in 2001. Also the British memo that was released last week clearly show Bush intended to go into Iraq before 9/11. There were others who wanted to attack Iraq and Bush was in the lead! My comment about WWII was to indicate that the Iraq War did not have popular support as did WWII after we were attecked. Saddam never attacked the US and did not have the ability to attack America. Saddam was no real threat to the US even if he had WMD. North Korea has WMD and we did not attack them!

---Give us some links...

The Terrorists would not be operating in Iraq if we had not invaded that country. What is the mission? When will Iraq be able to operate without 130,000 American military? Every day the news is the same. If we can not stop the terrorism wirh the massive military we have in place, is it possible to establish order from without? Only the Iraq people can STOP the killing.

--The terrorists were already there...there have been news reports by abc,nbc,and others of those details...

Sorry. The national polls show 58% do NOT agree with the Bush policy in Iraq. That was on the Sunday Talk shows including CNN. Republicas and Democrats in Congress are talking about a time table to begin removing our troops from Iraq. Wolf Blitzer questioned the the Sec of State about an hour ago on CNN as to the remove of US military from Iraq. Your 98% must all be from the 42% that support the Bush policy in Iraq not the 100% of Americans.

*shakes head*

The terrorists in Iraq today face a power far greater then Saddam - The United States Military. Look at the problems they create EVERY Day. America faced the worlds greatest power - England in 1776. If the Iraq people wanted to be free of Saddam, it was they, not the United Stades that should have made the sacrifice necessary to free themselves from Saddam Hussein. It was not the

The American Revolution and the situation in Iraq are far differen t. I agree with Col Gene when he says that the US military is far more powerful than the regime of SaddamHussain. Whether the Americans like it or not the fact remains that Saddam brought education to women in a big way. put them in the job market reduced the influence of the Isalmic clergy and empowered sections of the Iraqi society like the Christian minority. However, all these gains got unstuck during the UN imposed sanctions. He should have been removed after the Ist Gulf War when this experiment would have succeded . Now it is ttoo late/

The comments of Sec PAUL O'Neil are in "The price of Loyalty" and the memo is the one released in England about 10 days ago. They BOTH clearly show Bush intended to invade Iraq PRIOR to 9/11!

No matter what is said, Saddam did not pose any "real" danger to the US whan Bush attacked him! Saddam was a Bad peerson like scores of other dictators in he world. That is not a reason to put our military in danger and spend 300 Billion dollars.

The comments of Sec PAUL O'Neil are in "The price of Loyalty" and the memo is the one released in England about 10 days ago. They BOTH clearly show Bush intended to invade Iraq PRIOR to 9/11!

There is no "memo". There is only an alleged memo that this "reporter" copied and is telling people it's "reliable". Remember it was the Clinton policy on regime change in Iraq. Iraq had been defying the U.N. (or working with them), and the U.S. for years.

And until you go to every person in America and ask them what they think, stop quoting polls and telling us this is what "America" wants.

Paul O'Neil documented that the Iraq invasion was talked about at the FIRST CABINET MEETING of the Bush Admin in early 2001 LONG before 9/11. Bush intended to remove Saddam and only used 9/11, WMD, the UN resolutions and the War on Terrorism to justify what he planned to do from the outset of his administration!

IslandDog

Yes the Downing Street Memo does exist. It was just on "HardBall" on MSNBC. It clearly documents that Bush had decided to attack Saddam even though the Intel did not support the idea Iraq was a danger to the US!