Here you sort of sided stepped the facts a little. First, neither the President nor his administration stated that Iraq had anything to do with the attacks on 9/11. This lie has been refuted by the administration more than once. It was suggested that AQ and Iraq were working together by NBC news during a Q&A with the President. He said flatly, no that there was no known connection between the two and that we were going to war with Iraq for other reasons.

The Presidents State of the Union speech after the attack he said anyone that supported the terrorist, or harbored a terrorist would be treated like the terrorist. Both isles applauded this statement. It was a clear message to the world what the Bush doctrine was and how it would be implemented. This was he hated you are with us or you are with the terrorist speech. I say hated because it is hated by everyone that had political reasons for America to fail.

The result of the “with us or against us” speech was that most people that were supporting terrorist around the world stopped supporting terrorist around the world. Well almost everyone. Syria continued to help under the table as did Iran. Iraq on the other hand started a media blitz telling the world that he and his nation was picking up the slack. First by paying the families of homicide bombers twelve hundred dollars for attacks on Israel. Next he supported AQ by providing safe harbor as they were chassed out of Afghanistan then by providing medical treatment to AQ types wounded in Afghanistan under the table. When it was printed in the papers that the number three AQ was recuperating in Sadam’s hospital for VIP’s, the response to that was we started building up to follow through on the Bush doctrine. It was then that the government started to build a case for war in Iraq. Even Iran took five steps back and started giving us help. This was when the WMD crap. It was all to list every thing we could to have total justification to go to war. We did not need any of it we did it just to make the liberals happy because they needed it.

tell me if we run away again then why does aq win.

Al Qaeda may or may not have been in Iraq before the war...but now they are one of the players on the other side. If we unilaterally pull out of Iraq, all of groups fighting against us win.

Did France win during WWII? As a nation, did they do anything towards victory againt the Axis Powers? No... but they were part of the Allies, so they were included in the victory.

There are many groups fighting against a free Iraq. If we surrender, all of the groups can claim victory.

As far as that goes, do you realize that most Arab culture considered Hussein the victor in Desert Storm? Why? Because when the dust settled, it was the US led coalition that left and Hussein was left standing.

Something to think about.

and everyone knew that someone else would have to go in and finish it.

Yup, in fact, I remember telling the guys... "Keep your ruck sack packed, we'll be back". I didn't realize we'd be leaving the job undone for the next generation of soldiers to fight... and the country yawn and get bored with their efforts.

Apparently the Arab world was right, even the US would rather see Hussein stay in Power and turn on their own.

I don't give a shit.

How long were you gone Ted? 6 months? Now our Soldiers are gone 15 months and only home 12 months or less.

Iraq isn't worth it.

FUCK THAT.

"First, neither the President nor his administration stated that Iraq had anything to do with the attacks on 9/11."

Dick Cheny has said it over and over, against the 9/11 report, against the pentagon. To this day he maintains it. When the President is asked who we are fighting in Iraq today, it's not a pure Iraqi insurgency it's AQ.

Fox news got wind of it and ran with it and nobody has looked back since 2003. You tell me did we go into Iraq to rid WMD because there was a terrorist link between Saddam and AQ? Supposed intelligence which proved false says yeah.

"This lie has been refuted by the administration more than once."

If you are so certain. Why don't you do a U-tube search on cheny Iraq AQ see if you can't hear a few statement before the war alluding to it. Do it and tell me you can't because if I can you concede the point to me agreed? What this "lie" was is a clever political trick by Karl Rove to turn your weakness into your strength, no clear intel on an Iraq connection but a deep hatred for AQ by the American people, so make your enemy not only AQ but the Iraqis. It worked, and you know that it worked because the majority of people are following politics as deeply as a person falling asleep on a long flight in coach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RytxVNM0llQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWdq7hg4dLU&mode=related&search=

"tell me if we run away again then why does aq win."

I don't think they do. I don't think anybody wins at all, Iran might think it wins, but thats because they want more influence, but we would be in a stronger position to deal with Iran with a fresh and more deployable military than we are now. Iraqis would win about the same pace as they are now, slow, but sure progress, I still think they are only gonna get the country they want when they are in full control of it and not us stepping on their toes.

"If we unilaterally pull out of Iraq, all of groups fighting against us win."
"There are many groups fighting against a free Iraq. If we surrender, all of the groups can claim victory."

Win what? A shattered Iraq? Give me a break, that is no prize, no victory, certainly no victory you can hold up to the Islamic world and say hey give us your sons and daughters to blow up against Americans. So we can make the world more like Iraq. Give me a fucking break.

We don't lose we leave. I don't see Iraqi's aligning with AQ anymore than they are aligning with us, they are jostling with each other for local power, local control, local legitimacy, and taking the reigns to keep their streets safer. There have to be more jobs in their country then just police, border patrol, security and the army.

The groups fighting are fighting for control, not against the freedom, they are fighting for their own freedom, the freedom to control their own destinies.

"As far as that goes, do you realize that most Arab culture considered Hussein the victor in Desert Storm?"

Oh bullshit. We never left, we just drew down, and Saddam was no victor as evidenced by the continued grip we had on his country, well to this day. Aside from that it was us who was raining down torrential hell on the "highway of death" and the Arab world screaming "bloody murder" and for us to halt the aggression. Saddam was no victor and if anybody ever led him to believe that he was, it was so that he didn't shoot them on sight and try to attack another of his neighbors in the region. Remember he'd attacked Iran and fought the Iran Iraq war and the general consensus was he was planning to invade Saudi Arabia as well as Kuwait during Gulf War 1.

The reason Saddam was though to be an intrepid and hero is his launch of Scuds against Israel, and his proclaimed support for the Palestinians. But that's all bullshit and the people who supported him for a while would have a hard time doing so considering the mass graves and other atrocities.

Saddam was no victor after 1990.

"Did France win during WWII? As a nation, did they do anything towards victory againt the Axis Powers? No... but they were part of the Allies, so they were included in the victory."

According to my recollection of history they played on both sides of the fence. Signing an armistice with Hitler in 1940 in order to survive, forming a French Resistance inside the country, and the Free French Forces outside France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_French_Forces

You should remember that before WW2 was WW1, and it was a battle fought largely inside France and Germany and left both devastated. The English on the other hand, aside from aerial bombardment were largely like the United States in that there was not a battlefield like there was in France. Part of the reason the French signed an armistice with Hitler was to prevent the destruction of French society even at the expense of falling under Nazism.

I guess your definition of win would have to be explained to me. They earned their freedom by fighting for it when the conditions proved possible. The resistance was also necessary to provide the allies with intelligence on the Nazis.

I guess only someone who doesn't have a firm grasp of history would concluded that France largely sat out the war, and didn't do anything, didn't make any sacrifices.

Your claim that if we surrendur doesn't apply. We have already "won" the war, we cannot control the country's populace with the troop levels we have available. Turning them over to the Iraqi's themselves, allowing them to provide for their own security, their own governance, that is the only logical solution. The reason we remain is the shot at getting stable oil supplies and cheap oil in the future. Well that's not a gamble thats worth it.

Thanks for ignoring me, Dan! Awesome!

If there was a clear day in sight, where we had the parties together, letting them know, March 10, 2010 we are gone, stable or not, I'd support sticking it out until then as best we could.

But that is now what this is. "Stay the course" "we leave when the job is done" when hardly any progress is being made whatsoever, and it appears that things are only getting worse rather then better, to me that signals we aren't on the right path, that what we are doing is not right.

-When we are mortgaging our own financial future in order to support a state which hasn't demonstrated their willingness to uphold their own promises to each other in Iraq.
-When we are asking our soldiers to spend more time building Iraq than they do with their families.
-When we are prioritizing the security of a nation which may never be secure, leaving that commitment open forever, while we haven't made taking care of our own citizens in the gulf coast a priority as the same level.

While these things go on, I have a hard time, continuing to support endless commitments to future of Iraq. There is no corner to turn, or bend to round, just more car bombs, and people killing each other, more firefights and more death and destruction.

If we had 10 or 100 times the force to apply and subjugate these people, to put down this insurgency it would be different, a matter of time maybe, but we do not. We cannot even maintain the current level. I don't think it's wise to continue to invest in Iraq at this level at the expense of potential and real threats in the world today. Iraq needs to fight and take responsibility for it's own security.

"Thanks for ignoring me, Dan! Awesome!"

I wasn't ignoring you, you just got you post in while I was writing mine. I agree with you that an 18 month commitment is too long, babies are being born and walking and talking before they see their mom or dad, and if the need is so great for a long haul, we need to restructure the military to handle this kind of war. The fact that we cannot or are unwilling to me means we need not.

The bottom line is Iraq has to stand up for itself and on its own. Nobody came into our country during out independence and fought it for us. This maybe be some kind of great ideological struggle. If it turns out to be a fifty year war we certainly can't "win" it forcing troops to stay 15-18-21-24 months in a war zone. That's just insanity and it's wrong.

Gulf war commitments were not short for the most part, but there was a clear action date, as well as a clear beginning of the shuffle home. Most of the troops were out of theater inside of 18 months. The war lasted 100 hours. It's always the post-war that ties everything up.

Thanks. My neighbor's wife came home today at under a year gone and my husband won't be home for a month and a half to two months more if we're lucky (new baby is already walking and doing her thang), so I am a bit pissy today.

"The English on the other hand, aside from aerial bombardment were largely like the United States in that there was not a battlefield like there was in France."

My simple point, not to start world war 3 here Whip, is that on France, in both world wars, the battlefield was fought "inside" that country, on the land. The "Battle of Britain" was largely aerial. Even though the Axis did a hell of a job with the terror tactics of firebombing cities. There was no land invasion of the UK during WW2. There was land invasion in the Aleutian Islands of Alaska during WW2, but nothing on the mainland USA.

"Thanks. My neighbor's wife came home today at under a year gone and my husband won't be home for a month and a half to two months more if we're lucky (new baby is already walking and doing her thang), so I am a bit pissy today."

Hang in there, I hope your husband remains safe and that this is his last deployment to Iraq.

Yeah, I was only there 7 months... but the point is, if we would have been allowed to finish the job then, your husband wouldn't have to be there now.

((((((((( Brandie )))))))))

The job back then was UN sponsored and mandated, remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Not regime change and occupation. You can clearly see why regime change wasn't favored at that time, because it would have involved a messy occupation.

There would have been no coalition if the goal was regime change and removal of Saddam. Just like there was hardly a commitment by the majority of the world for this incursion into Iraq, certainly there may have been some support, but as Colin Powell put it,

"you break it, you own it."

We screwed up this mission and nobody is going to step in now. Nobody except the Iraqis when they step up.

true

Then how come there was so much support for us in Desert Storm... even when many of us WERE in Iraq... preparing to carry out orders to go through Baghdad?

Imagine our shock and awe when we were reading in the papers that there was no plans to remove Hussein.. yet we were on the ground preparing for just that.