Donald Rumsfeld, yuck!

[TJones]

And this has changed? The only difference now is Sadaam isn't doing the killing any more. But it continues. And if you believe the line "we went to Iraq to free the people" I've got a bridge you may be interested in.

West, you and your libber cohorts have already "bought" all the bridges and now you want to sell them all, because you listen to "wannabe" political hacks like Al Franken. "To free the people" was only one reason, if the war is going sooooo bad , then why did all your horses pass another $70 billion without blinking an eye ? What does that say to their "base" ? That perhaps we are doing the right thing by being there and seeing it through. If we took Moonman's "approach" to the situation, how pissed off would you be then West ?

West, you say "and this has changed?" Are you suggesting that the USA is "forcing" the Iraqi people to fight for our country, and that our country, yours and mine, is as bad as Saddam and we are tyrannical against the Iraqi people who want freedom and liberty ? That's amazing that you have come to that conclusion.

Edited October 3, 2006 by TJones

[west20th]

West, you and your libber cohorts have already "bought" all the bridges and now you want to sell them all, because you listen to "wannabe" political hacks like Al Franken. "To free the people" was only one reason, if the war is going sooooo bad , then why did all your horses pass another $70 billion without blinking an eye ? What does that say to their "base" ? That perhaps we are doing the right thing by being there and seeing it through. If we took Moonman's "approach" to the situation, how pissed off would you be then West ?

West, you say "and this has changed?" Are you suggesting that the USA is "forcing" the Iraqi people to fight for our country, and that our country, yours and mine, is as bad as Saddam and we are tyrannical against the Iraqi people who want freedom and liberty ? That's amazing that you have come to that conclusion.

1. I don't listen to Al Franken because he is not available in the Houston market.

2. Once we are in a war, even if it is debatable that we should even be there, we can't very well NOT fund our troops.

3. I don't agree with Moons approach either.

4. No, our country is not as bad as Sadaams regime was. I'm just saying the killing continues. Now the Shiites and Sunnis are killing each other. If you are dead It doesn't matter if Sadaam killed you or some religious fanatic killed you. You are still dead.

Edited October 3, 2006 by west20th

[nmainguy]

The number of troops was good enough.

Nah, silly boy. There were never enough troops to get us through this un-thought out war.

But I won't argue because the GOP (Grand Old Pedophiles) built this monster and my mom told me never to kick a cripple and never interrupt while your opponents are committing political suicide.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Im not suprised.

It's nice that you're surprised, but that doesn't answer anything. Kindly answer why U think a "kill kill" policy would make America safer. Are U saying that American soilders today should have a terrorist mindset?

Also Moonman, think about why we went to Iraq in the first place. OH SNAP!! OHHHHHHHH looky here! I done started a new debate! 20 years from now, textbooks will vary as to the answer to that question depending on if the textbook writer is a Democrat or Republican. Just shows how abstract the origin of the war is now depicted. But yea, think about how Iraq began, and why we supposedly went in. Was it to remove the "WMDs"? Rid Iraq of a brutal dictator? "Liberate" Iraq's people from the terrorists? Pick one. But either way, the Bush Administration made it clear that this wasn't a "holy war", and that we would do our best to insure the safety of as many innocent people in the warzone as possible. Any other method would have added even MORE fuel to the fire than there is today, and we'd have more enemies to fight, and more casualties.

Also for clarification, R U saying that because Rumsfeld hasn't adopted a "kill kill", he should resign? I don't want to misinterpret the topic if that's not what you're saying.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

It's nice that you're surprised, but that doesn't answer anything. Kindly answer why U think a "kill kill" policy would make America safer. Are U saying that American soilders today should have a terrorist mindset?

Also Moonman, think about why we went to Iraq in the first place. OH SNAP!! OHHHHHHHH looky here! I done started a new debate! 20 years from now, textbooks will vary as to the answer to that question depending on if the textbook writer is a Democrat or Republican. Just shows how abstract the origin of the war is now depicted. But yea, think about how Iraq began, and why we supposedly went in. Was it to remove the "WMDs"? Rid Iraq of a brutal dictator? "Liberate" Iraq's people from the terrorists? Pick one. But either way, the Bush Administration made it clear that this wasn't a "holy war", and that we would do our best to insure the safety of as many innocent people in the warzone as possible. Any other method would have added even MORE fuel to the fire than there is today, and we'd have more enemies to fight, and more casualties.

Also for clarification, R U saying that because Rumsfeld hasn't adopted a "kill kill", he should resign? I don't want to misinterpret the topic if that's not what you're saying.

Im not for any war as presented today. I didnt realize it was this hard to understand that. "Kill kill" and "End all solution" means do the job once the right time so we dont have to go back and do it again. Make the act of war so damn horrible, no bastard in thier right mind will ever attempt to buck us again. This garbage that has been going on since the 1990's is just that, GARBAGE.

I dont give a merry damn about political parties, i thought that was evident. No matter, im as blunt and in your face as can be and posters still attempt to put words in my mouth

A kill kill policy incase you are still wondering is a very effective policy that would make the leaders think more than once about entering war or conflict by making them familiar to no end with death and destruction. Non of the stupid parlor tricks you see on TV.

I have said before that the weapons systems and doctrines being pushed by Rumsfeld and Cheney are bad news, that would be the major reason i would wish for him to resign. Focus on that without the political BS. I will leave that absurdity to others that are better qualified.........

[nmainguy]

Im not for any war as presented today. I didnt realize it was this hard to understand that. "Kill kill" and "End all solution" means do the job once the right time so we dont have to go back and do it again. Make the act of war so damn horrible, no bastard in thier right mind will ever attempt to buck us again. This garbage that has been going on since the 1990's is just that, GARBAGE.

I dont give a merry damn about political parties, i thought that was evident. No matter, im as blunt and in your face as can be and posters still attempt to put words in my mouth

A kill kill policy incase you are still wondering is a very effective policy that would make the leaders think more than once about entering war or conflict by making them familiar to no end with death and destruction. Non of the stupid parlor tricks you see on TV.

I have said before that the weapons systems and doctrines being pushed by Rumsfeld and Cheney are bad news, that would be the major reason i would wish for him to resign. Focus on that without the political BS. I will leave that absurdity to others that are better qualified.........

I take great comfort that individuals like you have no position of power-and thankfully never will. At least with the goons in charge we've only killed 2700+ of our children. With someone as seeminghly unhinged as you appear to be on the loose, I can see your "Kill Kill" method costing us untold millions.

[TheNiche]

I take great comfort that individuals like you have no position of power-and thankfully never will. At least with the goons in charge we've only killed 2700+ of our children. With someone as seeminghly unhinged as you appear to be on the loose, I can see your "Kill Kill" method costing us untold millions.

On the contrary, Moonman's "kill kill" policy has proven remarkably effective throughout history. Look at the Mongols; they were successful both militarily and politically at building an enormous state in an era when communications were slow and military responses to insurection were slower yet. The only singular flaw that allowed their downfall as an empire was dictatorial succession...and even then, the Khanates survived in various forms for a good long while. And they're far from the only civilization that has ever utilized organized brutality as a tactic.

And believe me, it isn't that we don't have the ability to carry it out with relatively little loss of life on our end. Remember how quickly we've obtained air superiority in the past? That's all that it really takes. The problem insofar as the Moonmen of the world are concerned is that Americans tend to have a sense of morality that prevents us from engaging in such brutal forms of warfare. We care about the lives of the enemy and we care about the lives of the innocents.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Im not for any war as presented today. I didnt realize it was this hard to understand that. "Kill kill" and "End all solution" means do the job once the right time so we dont have to go back and do it again. Make the act of war so damn horrible, no bastard in thier right mind will ever attempt to buck us again. This garbage that has been going on since the 1990's is just that, GARBAGE.

I dont give a merry damn about political parties, i thought that was evident. No matter, im as blunt and in your face as can be and posters still attempt to put words in my mouth

A kill kill policy incase you are still wondering is a very effective policy that would make the leaders think more than once about entering war or conflict by making them familiar to no end with death and destruction. Non of the stupid parlor tricks you see on TV.

I have said before that the weapons systems and doctrines being pushed by Rumsfeld and Cheney are bad news, that would be the major reason i would wish for him to resign. Focus on that without the political BS. I will leave that absurdity to others that are better qualified.........

To concur, I too think this looks like a camera war. But I can't think of anyone Bush would replace Rumsfeld with that wouldn't do what Rumsfeld is now doing (downplaying the war, so to speak). Reason being that I think Bush's policy makers/PR reps are the ones running rampant and pulling the press-conference strings. They'll do anything to keep the -38% that approve of the administration Oh, and I'm not a political party kinda guy either.

And I also agree with you that I wanna see a situation where once we leave a warzone, we don't have to fight there again (like Iraq-Desert Storm, and Iraq-now). That being said, this is supposedly a "War on Terror". Let's say you do the "kill kill" thing. We're supposedly fighting terrorists. How are you supposed to scare terrorists into not wanting to attack us? Take them to a Spice Girls concert? They broke up, like, 6 years ago or something.

Seriously, think about it. What you're referring to MIGHT work for some countries (like Pakistan choosing to work with the U.S. instead of staying passive to avoid a war against the U.S.), but that does NOT work against an organization who's already dedicated to taking American lives. According to Bush, any country that's not with us (Iraq, Afghanistan) is against us, and we'll go into yo' country and throw Bombs over Baghdad regardless of what U say. Oh, and we'll take out your leadership and call it liberation. Sounds like a scare tactic to me if that's what you're looking for.

Moonman, U gotta realize 2 things. One: Terrorists have no policies except to kill the innocent. Their whole thing is to scare US. They're already scared. Regardless of how many bombs we throw, if a terrorist lives, chances are that they won't be scared of getting attacked again. They need to be killed or captured. Scaring their home country doesn't do anything but give other people the motivation to want to give their lives to join the boogeymen. Look at 9-11. Think America got scared afterwards. No. A lot of people joined the military to take out the people that did what they did. Other people may have that same mindset.

And Two: Bush's Administration want nothing more than good PR leading up to the November elections and next presidency for the next Republican to run. Tonight's Forecast calls for more Political Bull$#!+ with a chance of Tony Snow...

[westguy]

19 hijackers. Not a single one was from Iraq.

[TJones]

On the contrary, Moonman's "kill kill" policy has proven remarkably effective throughout history. Look at the Mongols; they were successful both militarily and politically at building an enormous state in an era when communications were slow and military responses to insurection were slower yet. The only singular flaw that allowed their downfall as an empire was dictatorial succession...and even then, the Khanates survived in various forms for a good long while. And they're far from the only civilization that has ever utilized organized brutality as a tactic.

And believe me, it isn't that we don't have the ability to carry it out with relatively little loss of life on our end. Remember how quickly we've obtained air superiority in the past? That's all that it really takes. The problem insofar as the Moonmen of the world are concerned is that Americans tend to have a sense of morality that prevents us from engaging in such brutal forms of warfare. We care about the lives of the enemy and we care about the lives of the innocents.

That is almost exactly what it is, the regrets from the loss of life is what overcomes all. What if, and a big what if, we just go in and KILL KILL KILL, drop a nuke on everyone in a 200 mile radius. You could possibly have just killed the doctor repsonsible for curing cancer or AIDS, or Moonman's syphillus ! ! ! We all know how important that is. I have come to the brink of, "screw it, we got the bomb, kill'em all !" Then I think, "wait a sec., they got a bomb also, or one of their buddies has one."

Rules of engagement is what the big tie that is holding our hands is in Iraq. You have to keep a tight leash on our fighting machine. They are the most highly trained and finely tuned killing machine in the world, and in the heat of battle things happen and get out of hand. But als, that is WAR, and in today's world, you have a camera on every street light and building around you, and someone who opposes the WAR, is always looking for a reason, more like a "cause" though.

[nmainguy]

You could possibly have just killed the doctor repsonsible for curing cancer or AIDS, or Moonman's syphillus ! ! !

I just snorted my orange juice out of my nose. Thanks alot TJ!

Now I have to go get a roll of paper towels...

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

On the contrary, Moonman's "kill kill" policy has proven remarkably effective throughout history. Look at the Mongols; they were successful both militarily and politically at building an enormous state in an era when communications were slow and military responses to insurection were slower yet. The only singular flaw that allowed their downfall as an empire was dictatorial succession...and even then, the Khanates survived in various forms for a good long while. And they're far from the only civilization that has ever utilized organized brutality as a tactic.

The ignorant will never understand. Some of the silly jackasses here think im so gung-ho on war, and the truth is the opposite. I hate war and never wish to have it visited on us ever. To do that, i believe we have to make it EXTREMELY unpleasant and deathly horrible for anyone to attack us or to even remotely consider attacking us or encouraging an attack or attacks on us. Those kinds of thoughts are not popular in this falsely enlightened society of ours we live in today. My message to those....get comfortable with the deaths of Americans now and on a wider spread in the future. My methods of thinking have been removed and this is why you are seeing the garbage of today. Take comfort in calling me a mad man and demented and keep supporting Rumsfeld, or specific political parties, if thats your thing....and dont forget to plan your funerals while you are at it. That very limp wrist attitude is an open invitation to death!!!!! My words are not popular perhaps because they arent shrouded in BS and political garbage, but they are are true as the sun is hot. Think about it......

[webdude]

The ignorant will never understand. Some of the silly jackasses here think im so gung-ho on war, and the truth is the opposite. I hate war and never wish to have it visited on us ever. To do that, i believe we have to make it EXTREMELY unpleasant and deathly horrible for anyone to attack us or to even remotely consider attacking us or encouraging an attack or attacks on us. Those kinds of thoughts are not popular in this falsely enlightened society of ours we live in today. My message to those....get comfortable with the deaths of Americans now and on a wider spread in the future. My methods of thinking have been removed and this is why you are seeing the garbage of today. Take comfort in calling me a mad man and demented and keep supporting Rumsfeld, or specific political parties, if thats your thing....and dont forget to plan your funerals while you are at it. That very limp wrist attitude is an open invitation to death!!!!! My words are not popular perhaps because they arent shrouded in BS and political garbage, but they are are true as the sun is hot. Think about it......

With this war, we actually did the OPPOSITE of making it 'unpleasant to attack us.' I too want the soldiers to have not die in vain but it is looking grimer everyday what they sacrificed their lives for. Remember the report that leak out on the effects of the war, how it increase more danger for us.

Edited October 4, 2006 by webdude

[TJones]

Moonman, in all seriousness, I totally understand your point. When Reagan was in power, NOBODY dared point a finger at us, or drew a line in the sand and said "I dare ya !" They all thought Reagan was a crazy cowboy, and that if you did dare him, he would. Why do you think they called him, Ronny Ray-Gun. HE started Star Wars, told everyone to calm the "F" down, or they were goin' down. We would shoot lasers and missiles from our satelites if they didn't. The beauty part was that everyone bought into it, even us, then we got laxed.

First Gulf War, made it look so easy to kick some Arab ass. The media wasn't telling the whole story. You know it, I know it, and anyone who cares to look around the internet can find it. I agree we should have gone hotter and heavier into Iraq, took just a few hours really, to secure the cities, then we got laxed, we didn't think about possible terrorists coming from Syria, Iran, Afghanistan to recruit more in Iraq. They are getting a handle back on it now. I think the goal now is to make peace between the Sunnis and Shiites, the war keeps lingering on because the tide of battle keeps changing, and NEW problems keep arising. We are basically fighting on 3 fronts, and we just need to come up with a plan to quell one problem at a time.

[nmainguy]

I want the soldiers to have not die in vain but it is looking grimer everyday what they sacrificed their lives for.

What do you tell the moms and dads, brothers and sisters, aunts, uncles and cousins what they died for? There are so many of us wondering. So far there has been no comforting answer from those who have taken them to war.

[DJ V Lawrence]

What do you tell the moms and dads, brothers and sisters, aunts, uncles and cousins what they died for? There are so many of us wondering. So far there has been no comforting answer from those who have taken them to war.

Here's a question, Nmainguy. What can the administration say to comfort them when they've made the reason why we went to war in Iraq a debatable and abstract subject in itself? Sure, when a soilder is there, they have individual missions, but if you were to ask why America was sent there, you get, like, 10 different answers that have nothing to do with each other. And I don't understand when I hear a conservative/liberal debate (like Hannity & Colmes, O' Reilly Factor), and the conservative says something stupid like "if you had it your way, Sadaam would still be in power". No sh#t, Sherlock! Maybe taking Sadaam wasn't the reason stated as to why we went to war. Or is it?

I hate war and never wish to have it visited on us ever. To do that, i believe we have to make it EXTREMELY unpleasant and deathly horrible for anyone to attack us or to even remotely consider attacking us or encouraging an attack or attacks on us.

I know U mean well, Mooner. My question 2 U is this: What punishment do U think we should give to a suicide bomber? U know, scare him/her away from wanting to blow themselves up or hijack a plane?

[Parrothead]

What do you tell the moms and dads, brothers and sisters, aunts, uncles and cousins what they died for? There are so many of us wondering. So far there has been no comforting answer from those who have taken them to war.

There will never be a "comforting" answer for why anyone is killed in any war. I support the war, and I don't think any even remotely reasonable explanation would do the trick if it were my son or daughter, but faith in God and my country would see me through, and that's what many families in the past (and currently) have had to hang onto. (My aunt used to say "God help an agnostic military family.").

I'm not sure who you know in the military, perhaps you have a close family member in Iraq? I do--my cousin Chuck flies helicopters in the Army. He knows what he is doing there, and is saddened for people who do not know, or who do not believe, back home. Most of the families of the soldiers who have died understand what we are doing there; if you don't, then that's just you, and people who think in the same way, but never assume that the military is made up of the Cindy Sheehans of this country; it is not. A visit to any military base family function will tell you that (and we just got back from one in Leesville, LA).

I hear you say things like "our children". They're adults. Young adults, yes, but they're adults nonetheless, and make their own choices in this world. To paint them as lemmings jumping off a cliff is disrespectful. That's just my opinion. I know, you're probably going to come back and insult me, say all sorts of snotty things per usual to me, but my family is a military family like many others, and I just had to get that off of my chest. Not just to you, but to anyone else who has gotten sucked in by the media's take that this is all for naught.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

There will never be a "comforting" answer for why anyone is killed in any war. I support the war, and I don't think any even remotely reasonable explanation would do the trick if it were my son or daughter, but faith in God and my country would see me through, and that's what many families in the past (and currently) have had to hang onto. (My aunt used to say "God help an agnostic military family.").

I'm not sure who you know in the military, perhaps you have a close family member in Iraq? I do--my cousin Chuck flies helicopters in the Army. He knows what he is doing there, and is saddened for people who do not know, or who do not believe, back home. Most of the families of the soldiers who have died understand what we are doing there; if you don't, then that's just you, and people who think in the same way, but never assume that the military is made up of the Cindy Sheehans of this country; it is not. A visit to any military base family function will tell you that (and we just got back from one in Leesville, LA).

I hear you say things like "our children". They're adults. Young adults, yes, but they're adults nonetheless, and make their own choices in this world. To paint them as lemmings jumping off a cliff is disrespectful. That's just my opinion. I know, you're probably going to come back and insult me, say all sorts of snotty things per usual to me, but my family is a military family like many others, and I just had to get that off of my chest. Not just to you, but to anyone else who has gotten sucked in by the media's take that this is all for naught.

Parrothead, please take a bow. This post is a very good one. So far a belief in GOD and country are not terribly unpopular and will NEVER be unpopular with me!!!

The constant whining you hear from some people here about the tragic and unfortunate deaths of American soldiers have nothing to do with the soldiers, its all politically motivated and that makes me SICK TO NO DAMN END.

To the comment about Reagan. He made a mistake in the beginning by listening to the limp wrist people around him and the result of that was Lebanon and the fiasco that followed. In the 1980's the "hawk" strenghth was legendary! The bullheaded hawkish guys banded together(thats a very dangerous thing to do) and convinced the old man that the limp wrist attitude of "symbolism over substance" wasnt a good one. Lebanon was a smoke and mirrors campaign that exploded in our face. The limp wrist advisors to Reagan told him that peace would fall on the area just by having the presence of US troops there. Very bad strategy and we have the unfortunate deaths of many Americans to prove it The same types of policies and weapons systems Rumsfeld is pursueing will lead to that same conclusion, perhaps sooner than i think

Hawkish guys have very intense training that most Americans will never know. They grabbed the attention of Mr Reagan. They convinced him to hit and hit hard at any enemy or percieved enemy of the United States---In short, they made him a firm believer in the SIOP. He let the generals and admirals, most of them "hawks" do what they were paid to do. Dream up ways of waging war that would be victorious for the USA or would bring a swift end to life on the planet as we know it, with the full intensions and means to carry it out. That is what kept enemies and potential enemies away from our shores and interest and not this stupid limp wrist political garbage being played out today.

[RedScare]

...I just had to get that off of my chest. Not just to you, but to anyone else who has gotten sucked in by the media's take that this is all for naught.

Polls show that nearly 70% of Americans have gotten "sucked in by the media's take". However, to lump all 70% into one group as having the same opinion, other than they are opposed to the war, is incorrect. That 70% includes those that never thought we should invade. It also includes those that approved of an invasion on Nuke and WMD grounds, but withdrew support when that rationale proved wrong. It also includes those that supported the war to oust Saddam, but no longer support a never-ending occupation, or a war that has cost over half a trillion dollars, or has cost more lives than was suggested early on.

This is not a war that is worth it at ANY cost. As the cost in money and lives continues to mount, with no end in sight, more Americans will oppose it. There might even be a point at which YOU say, "enough!" What number would that be for you?

I am interested in your belief that the majority of Americans have been suckered by the media. Have they misled us on the number of casualties? Are they lying about the number of insurgent attacks? Are there no Shia death squads? Has it not cost $500 billion? If these things are not true, why are we still there? Were we not told that it would be over in 6 months, a year max?

President Bush has already promised that troops will be in Iraq after he leaves office in January 2009. Will you still support this war in February 2009? What if a Democrat is elected? Will you demand he or she stay the course? Is there a point in time, or a number of dead soldiers or money spent, where you will say it was not worth it?

I hope you do not take this as an insult. I talk to few people these days who support either the war, or the way it has been fought. I am curious what your thoughts are on these questions, especially since I opposed the invasion before it started.

____

I invite others to answer these questions, as well. Please only answer for yourself. Any attacks on other poster's comments, I ask the moderators to delete without delay.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Actually, I have a question to RedScare, Moonman, and everyone else. Did anyone here see the Bob Woodward interview on Larry King a couple nights back? Interesting stuff.

But lemme try to answer RedScare. This might take a minute. Good questions, by the way:

This is not a war that is worth it at ANY cost. As the cost in money and lives continues to mount, with no end in sight, more Americans will oppose it. There might even be a point at which YOU say, "enough!" What number would that be for you?

-That # would be 2008. The year we choose our next president. We don't know who's running, but we already know from Bush that money and lives in Iraq and our military are a blank check until the next president succeeds him.

I am interested in your belief that the majority of Americans have been suckered by the media. Have they misled us on the number of casualties? Are they lying about the number of insurgent attacks? Are there no Shia death squads? Has it not cost $500 billion? If these things are not true, why are we still there? Were we not told that it would be over in 6 months, a year max?

The media hasn't misled the American public as to the amount of casualties in Iraq, but because of the amount of deaths in Iraq, they have misled the public as to the SIGNIFICANCE of each death. You'll see the names passing by from time to time, but how do we know what 1000 deaths in Iraq look like? And how do we relate to the quantity of insurgent attacks Or $500 Billion dollars? Spent on what? They're just numbers. The media hasn't done enough to take something so big and break it down into exactly how it affects people. I bet you they're not just numbers to a parent who lost someone in war. Let the people watch one-hour documentaries on each individual who died for our country, how they died, and what they love (like we do on a Barbara Walters special). Oh, would that be too long? Exactly. But they deserve to be recognized, and the administration won't even allow the media to film pictures of the caskets being brought back home...

Oh, and we weren't told that the war would be over in 6 months-one year. Bush never left a timetable to avoid the confusion. He DID however say that the major combat operations in Iraq were over, like, 3 years ago on a Navy ship that had a "Mission Accomplished" banner in the background. So the war is over. No one's died since. Iraq is secure. In the words of Maury, "the lie detector test determined that was a lie..."

President Bush has already promised that troops will be in Iraq after he leaves office in January 2009. Will you still support this war in February 2009? What if a Democrat is elected? Will you demand he or she stay the course? Is there a point in time, or a number of dead soldiers or money spent, where you will say it was not worth it?

If a Democrat wins, here's what will happen. The Republicans will try to slam that president for the amount of deaths in Iraq since they've been in power, though that's on Bush. Then that president is going to push for a timetable for withdrawl of the troops, to which Americans come home. Once one attack happens after the time is up, Republicans will SLAM that president for failing to complete their goal, even though it's unrealistic.

I don't think many people support the war NOW, much less in 2009. But everyone already knows that if we were to just leave tommorow as is, knowing we've already started war in Iraq, it would give an unstable nation more fuel for terrorists/insurgents to prey on. America would become MUCH unsafer than it already is. What's going on is the fact that Bush's administration made a mess in Iraq, so to speak, and he's saying that he expects the next president to clean it up somehow. Jacked up, yea?

And a lot of people already say the war wasn't worth it, but we have no choice but to finish what was started to avoid having to go back to Iraq a 3rd time, which would still result in American deaths.

(sorry for the long post)

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I hardly ever pay attention to the talking heads and the "so called experts" on strategy and things military. That stuff is most often laughable.

To Redscare, i really appreciate your post and truely hope you believe in what you said in it, thats the sort of stuff that will help keep people honest!!!!!!!!

Yet a another twist in the demented one

And DJ, the suicide bomber thing hasnt happened on our soil. Theres a reason for that, i will let you come up with the answer, maybe

[DJ V Lawrence]

And DJ, the suicide bomber thing hasnt happened on our soil. Theres a reason for that, i will let you come up with the answer, maybe

> It's 'cause I'm black, isn't it?! >

[TJones]

> It's 'cause I'm black, isn't it?! >

For the LAST TIME, Ali G is NOT Black !

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

> It's 'cause I'm black, isn't it?! >

DJ damn it. Mr. i need to stop talking to you because you have driven me to MAALOX.!!!!!

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Breaking News, I got my wish, Rumsfeld is resigning!!!!!!!

[ssullivan]

Breaking News, I got my wish, Rumsfeld is resigning!!!!!!!

Yeah, was thrilled to hear that on the radio this afternoon while out on my lunch break.