Where's the exit strategy?

60% disapprove of King Idiot, too. So I guess 60% of the country are crazy liberals, huh?

Oh, and by the way- Kosovo is no longer a war zone. You would have your evil liberals bitching about the troops being in Iraq if they were effectively keeping the peace, but the reality is, and I mean what is happening in the real world and not your little fantasy world, is that Iraq is embroiled in a civil war right now. Why don't you go sign up to fight there?

You can't seriously be comparing the security situation in Iraq, where hundreds of thousands of troops are and a violent civil war is raging, to Kosovo?

You can't seriously be comparing the security situation in Iraq, where hundreds of thousands of troops are and a violent civil war is raging, to Kosovo?

Uh, yes, apparently though the main point escaped you, I can.

We enterted Kosovo without any exit strategy. We were pulled into a conflict because the U.N. had no security forces to speak of, and what was happening in Europe at the time, specifically in Kosovo was a travesty.

It was the right thing to do, don't get me wrong, but it involved calling up troops and deploying them for who knows how long, with no real plan for how we were going to get out once we got in.

The idiots that have been crying for an exit strategy in Iraq have been ignoring the ignoring the fact that we have one there -- we had one when we went in. The idea was remove Saddam and help establish a stable democratic government. That stable democratic government has been coming along, nicely actually.

Yes there is unrest to this day in Iraq, but they have a government taking hold. People there are participating in the process. The elections have been wildly successful there, and we are continuing to do the job. Not without danger, not without security problems that must be addressed and solved, but with things getting better as we go.

So, you and others that want to say these situations aren't comparable are delusional lovers of all things left. If William Jefferson Clinton or Al Gore had been the one to send troops to Iraq to get rid of Saddam, you'd be defending that action against a host of people from the other side saying that the liberals had gotten us into an unwinnable war.

and what was the justification? Joseph Biden whining... "well, we gotta do something!"

Daedalus:

60% disapprove of King Idiot, too.

We'll see what percentage of the Iraqi people "disapprove" of freedom in the upcoming election.

Oh, and by the way- Kosovo is no longer a war zone.

Hmmm, I wonder why the troops serving in Kosovo are authorized "combat patches" then?

Oh, sorry, I forgot that only the left is allowed to enter our troops into an area without having an exit strategy in effect in advance. Apples and oranges--there are 156K troops and some 25,000 coalition forces in Iraq while there is a minimal number of AMerican troops, together with an overwhelming majority of allies.

If William Jefferson Clinton or Al Gore had been the one to send troops to Iraq to get rid of Saddam, you'd be defending that action against a host of people from the other side saying that the liberals had gotten us into an unwinnable war.

Figment of your imagination--it never would have happened.

Figment of your imagination--it never would have happened.

Truer words never spoken. Clinton/Gore'd be feebly lobbing missiles at Sudanese aspirin factories and empty weapons trading encampments. Oh wait, they did.
And how would the world look now?
We'd have terrorism knocking down our front doors, maybe synchronized-bombing Wal*Marts and shopping malls across the country. That would truly hobble this mighty nation and send us spiraling into chaos. They can bomb two American embassies on one continent at the same time, why not the Mall of America and Dallas Cowboys stadium at once?

(If Steven can conjecture, I can conjecture too.)

Figment of your imagination--it never would have happened.

Such figments of imagination are what regularly pass for arguments from the left here ("If we had known X, or not been told Y, we never would have approved Z."). Very little constructive or helpful, just a lot of "coulda, shoulda, woulda".

Cheers,
Daiwa

Figment of your imagination--it never would have happened.

You might be right. Look at the way they handled terrorism. How many times did Clinton visit the WTC after the first bombing?

Apples and oranges--there are 156K troops and some 25,000 coalition forces in Iraq while there is a minimal number of AMerican troops, together with an overwhelming majority of allies.

Apples to Apples.  Why is the MSM and the left not yelling for an exit strategy from Kosovo?  It is a valid question.  The number of troops is irrelevant.

Why is the MSM and the left not yelling for an exit strategy from Kosovo?

Why is this the first military operation EVER to have a call for an "exit strategy" or a "time table". It has NEVER been a requirement before, so why are whiny little pissants calling for it now? Just a reminder... In WWII a troop left the U.S. expecting to spend up to 3 years in country.

Exit strategy is the liberal word for "surrender".

Exit strategy is the liberal word for "surrender".

Yup, it's just a "what's the quickest way to lose, so we can start the blame game" which is the only game the far left is anyway. I haven't heard many solutions from the far left lately... just who they can blame.

I think the mistake must reside partly with the Bush administration for using the term "mission accomplished." I think to most people take that to mean the hard part is over, and that's why a time table to finish cleaning up is expected.

While it was the accomplishment of a major objective, it didn't marke the completion of the Iraq mission. Call it a mistake based on initially underestimating the insurgency, but it became apparent shortly after the "mission accomplished" announcement that this was not the case, and probably should have been more forcefully retracted, until the overall mission - which I take to be an independent, democratic, stable Iraq, free of Saddam Hussein, with the ability to defend itself against both internal and external threats - is completed.

but the reality is, and I mean what is happening in the real world and not your little fantasy world, is that Iraq is embroiled in a civil war right now. Why don't you go sign up to fight there?

I thought civil war was when civilians took up arms and fought, since when have the Iraqis started fighting with each other?

You can't seriously be comparing the security situation in Iraq, where hundreds of thousands of troops are and a violent civil war is raging, to Kosovo?

How's about you think before you ... heck just think. There are American soldiers in Kosovo for a reason. If we were at war there at one time and it's over why are we still there? Why are our boys in a country where there's no fighting and is not US soil (excluding the Embassy if any)? Here's a Liberal argument since it's all you understand "Duh".

but the reality is, and I mean what is happening in the real world and not your little fantasy world, is that Iraq is embroiled in a civil war right now. Why don't you go sign up to fight there? I thought civil war was when civilians took up arms and fought, since when have the Iraqis started fighting with each other?

Looks like for a while...

Civil War In Iraq? by William S. Lind Observers continue to ask, "Will Iraq descend into civil war?" The answer is that civil war is already underway in Iraq. Most people do not see it, because it is not following the Sunni/Shi'ite/Kurd fault lines on which we have been lead to focus. As is usually the case in war, we are the victims not of deception but of self-deception. In Iraq's civil war, the most prominent faction is what America calls Iraq's "government." It is, of course, not a government, because there is no state. The "government's" goal is to recreate an Iraqi state and become a real government. What are its chances of success? At the physical level, the "government" is undoubtedly the most powerful faction in Iraq's civil war. It has more money and more troops than any competitor. It also has the U.S. military behind it, as we have seen recently in Fallujah, where the Iraqi "government" has approved and even provided intelligence for American air strikes. But at the moral level, the Iraqi "government" is probably the weakest faction, weaker even than the elements still fighting for Saddam. The reason is that it is an American creation and puppet - a Quisling regime, formed and propped up by a now-hated invader. If it is to have any hope of legitimacy, it must cut the strings to the American puppeteer. So far, it shows no ability to do that. Its one serious effort to date has been to hint at some sort of amnesty for anti-American resistance fighters, a move that could help split its opposition. But that move was stopped cold by the United States, in a way that demonstrates to Iraqis and the world who is really in charge

While it was the accomplishment of a major objective, it didn't marke the completion of the Iraq mission.

Call it fact, misrepresented by the press and the left. Prs. Bush never said the war was over, he merely congratulated the troops in general for the removal of the Hussein regime from power, and the sailors and officers of the U.S.S. Lincoln specifically (which was what the banner was all about anyway).

To the press, no lie is beneath them in bringing about the goals of the bacteria in Iraq.

I'm still searching for the honest reporter or news outlet willing to stand up to the rest... so far, I haven't found one.

You can't seriously be comparing the security situation in Iraq, where hundreds of thousands of troops are and a violent civil war is raging, to Kosovo?

Of course the troops in Kosovo don't matter to you, the press hasn't told you they matter... so they don't.

Figment of your imagination--it never would have happened.

I just love it when people miss the point. But can't expect anything more.

Looks like for a while... Civil War In Iraq? by William S. Lind Observers continue to ask, "Will Iraq descend into civil war?" The answer is that civil war is already underway in Iraq. Most people do not see it, because it is not following the Sunni/Shi'ite/Kurd fault lines on which we have been lead to focus. As is usually the case in war, we are the victims not of deception but of self-deception. In Iraq's civil war, the most prominent faction is what America calls Iraq's "government." It is, of course, not a government, because there is no state. The "government's" goal is to recreate an Iraqi state and become a real government. What are its chances of success? At the physical level, the "government" is undoubtedly the most powerful faction in Iraq's civil war. It has more money and more troops than any competitor. It also has the U.S. military behind it, as we have seen recently in Fallujah, where the Iraqi "government" has approved and even provided intelligence for American air strikes. But at the moral level, the Iraqi "government" is probably the weakest faction, weaker even than the elements still fighting for Saddam. The reason is that it is an American creation and puppet - a Quisling regime, formed and propped up by a now-hated invader. If it is to have any hope of legitimacy, it must cut the strings to the American puppeteer. So far, it shows no ability to do that. Its one serious effort to date has been to hint at some sort of amnesty for anti-American resistance fighters, a move that could help split its opposition. But that move was stopped cold by the United States, in a way that demonstrates to Iraqis and the world who is really in charge

Thanx for the reply. I learn something new everyday I always say. My bad.