President Bush begins pulling troops - Bush Orders Troop Cuts

[avatar4321]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070912/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

Obviously the war is going well enough for the President to feel confident to start this process.

At what point do we start admitting that we are winning this war?

[Gunny]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070912/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

Obviously the war is going well enough for the President to feel confident to start this process.

At what point do we start admitting that we are winning this war?

What war are we winning?

[avatar4321]

What war are we winning?

The one in Iraq.

[Gunny]

The one in Iraq.

Which one? There's the Sunni-Shia War. There's our so-called war against terrorists that come from both those crowds.

What exactly are we accomplishing?

[JohnDoe]

Which one? There's the Sunni-Shia War. There's our so-called war against terrorists that come from both those crowds.

What exactly are we accomplishing? good questions, that i would like to know the answers to...

[bullypulpit]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070912/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

Obviously the war is going well enough for the President to feel confident to start this process.

At what point do we start admitting that we are winning this war?

Well, ya know, those 30,000 troops were scheduled to be rotated out anyways, and when that happens, five years into the occupation of Iraq, we'll be right back where we were four years into the occupation of Iraq.

Face it, boys and girls, Bush is just kicking the can down the road for the next occupant of the Oval Office to deal with. And his delaying the decision to set a date certain for the redeployment of our troops out of the middle of a Sunni v. Shi'ia civil war is doing nothing but spilling more American blood and treasure on the sands of Iraq and pissing on the graves of those who have already died in the pursuit of his grandiose, delusional vision of "America's destiny".

As for "winning the war", our troops did a magnificent job of rolling up the Iraqi army and winning the war. It's too bad, though, that Bush and his merry band pissed that all away by completely screwing the pooch with their fucked up occupation.

Jesus! When are you people going to stop apologizing and rationalizing this sorry, sick, sniveling mediocrity of a president?

[Dilloduck]

Well, ya know, those 30,000 troops were scheduled to be rotated out anyways, and when that happens, five years into the occupation of Iraq, we'll be right back where we were four years into the occupation of Iraq.

Face it, boys and girls, Bush is just kicking the can down the road for the next occupant of the Oval Office to deal with. And his delaying the decision to set a date certain for the redeployment of our troops out of the middle of a Sunni v. Shi'ia civil war is doing nothing but spilling more American blood and treasure on the sands of Iraq and pissing on the graves of those who have already died in the pursuit of his grandiose, delusional vision of "America's destiny".

As for "winning the war", our troops did a magnificent job of rolling up the Iraqi army and winning the war. It's too bad, though, that Bush and his merry band pissed that all away by completely screwing the pooch with their fucked up occupation.

Jesus! When are you people going to stop apologizing and rationalizing this sorry, sick, sniveling mediocrity of a president?

Maybe the Dems can send you over to Iraq next time. You'd tell everyone exactly what Patraeus wouldn't. I'm really sorry the Dems are too chicken to pull the plug for ya, Bully. Really.

[bullypulpit]

Maybe the Dems can send you over to Iraq next time. You'd tell everyone exactly what Patraeus wouldn't. I'm really sorry the Dems are too chicken to pull the plug for ya, Bully. Really.

You seem happy enough for our troops to continue shedding their blood as a salve to the ego of the man we call..."Mr. President".

[Dilloduck]

You seem happy enough for our troops to continue shedding their blood as a salve to the ego of the man we call..."Mr. President".

Disgusting--go tell a soldier that he is fighting for Bushs' ego and you'll get more than your ass kicked. Or are you going to pull the Kerry routine and tell me they are just too stupid to know what's going on?

[bullypulpit]

Disgusting--go tell a soldier that he is fighting for Bushs' ego and you'll get more than your ass kicked. Or are you going to pull the Kerry routine and tell me they are just too stupid to know what's going on?

The only thing disgusting is the willingness of you, and anyone else who supports Bush, to let our troops keep dying in a war without end, under a president who's more than willing to sacrifice their lives to secure his "legacy". That's disgusting.

As for our troops, they're doing their duty to the best of their ability to fulfill the orders of a President who doesn't really care if they live or die.

[Dilloduck]

The only thing disgusting is the willingness of you, and anyone else who supports Bush, to let our troops keep dying in a war without end, under a president who's more than willing to sacrifice their lives to secure his "legacy". That's disgusting.

As for our troops, they're doing their duty to the best of their ability to fulfill the orders of a President who doesn't really care if they live or die.

Sorry Bully but your claims that Bush is securing his legacy and doesn't care about troops dying are merely the speculations of another bitter person. You can't even come close to validating any of it. Troops die in the US while in boot camp or driving home from a week-end pass. War never ends and people never stop dying. You know that.

[avatar4321]

The only thing disgusting is the willingness of you, and anyone else who supports Bush, to let our troops keep dying in a war without end, under a president who's more than willing to sacrifice their lives to secure his "legacy". That's disgusting.

As for our troops, they're doing their duty to the best of their ability to fulfill the orders of a President who doesn't really care if they live or die.

Did you ever stop to consider that the President sends them to war, not because he doesnt care i they live or die, but because he cares enough about all Americans enough to not want all of them to die.

Because if we dont win this war on terror, the American people will die. And there are men and women who are willing to fight and risk their own lives to secure the lives and freedom of their fellow Americans.

This is just another examples of how liberals cant deal with information that is contrary to their already reached conclusions.

[Gunny]

Well, ya know, those 30,000 troops were scheduled to be rotated out anyways, and when that happens, five years into the occupation of Iraq, we'll be right back where we were four years into the occupation of Iraq.

Face it, boys and girls, Bush is just kicking the can down the road for the next occupant of the Oval Office to deal with. And his delaying the decision to set a date certain for the redeployment of our troops out of the middle of a Sunni v. Shi'ia civil war is doing nothing but spilling more American blood and treasure on the sands of Iraq and pissing on the graves of those who have already died in the pursuit of his grandiose, delusional vision of "America's destiny".

As for "winning the war", our troops did a magnificent job of rolling up the Iraqi army and winning the war. It's too bad, though, that Bush and his merry band pissed that all away by completely screwing the pooch with their fucked up occupation.

Jesus! When are you people going to stop apologizing and rationalizing this sorry, sick, sniveling mediocrity of a president?

Give it a rest. Had Bush been conducting this occupation properly, teh bleeding hearts would be shedding crocodile tears enough to reverse global warming.

What it all boils down to is I don't think the correct strategic decision was made by removing Saddam, and have thought that since the early 90s. But it doesn't matter a bit since the decision WAS made to do so.

Having decided to do so, I'd have taken him out and just left. Did n't do that either.

But no matter what happens, people such as yourself are going to present Iraq as a failure. If the Iraq gov't says "please leave now" and we do, failure according to you.

Bottom line is a win, or "mission accomplished let's go home" in Iraq would be disasterous to you libs and the DNC, so no matter what happens, you're going to paint it in a negative light.

[bullypulpit]

Did you ever stop to consider that the President sends them to war, not because he doesnt care i they live or die, but because he cares enough about all Americans enough to not want all of them to die.

Because if we dont win this war on terror, the American people will die. And there are men and women who are willing to fight and risk their own lives to secure the lives and freedom of their fellow Americans.

This is just another examples of how liberals cant deal with information that is contrary to their already reached conclusions.

Bush doesn't care about anyone but himself. He is a classic narcissistic personality, which is not uncommon amongst alcoholics.

[bullypulpit]

Give it a rest. Had Bush been conducting this occupation properly, teh bleeding hearts would be shedding crocodile tears enough to reverse global warming.

What it all boils down to is I don't think the correct strategic decision was made by removing Saddam, and have thought that since the early 90s. But it doesn't matter a bit since the decision WAS made to do so.

Having decided to do so, I'd have taken him out and just left. Did n't do that either.

But no matter what happens, people such as yourself are going to present Iraq as a failure. If the Iraq gov't says "please leave now" and we do, failure according to you.

Bottom line is a win, or "mission accomplished let's go home" in Iraq would be disasterous to you libs and the DNC, so no matter what happens, you're going to paint it in a negative light.

Had the Bush administration "conducted the occupation properly", we would likely have been out of Iraq by now. But he and certain members of his administration turned it into a cash cow for former employers and campaign contributors. Also known as war profiteering.

If Iraq says "Get out..." and we do, I would be most surprised. The failure in Iraq failure lies foursquare on the Bush administration in its mishandling of the occupation from day one. Its failure lies solely with the Bush administration for taking its collective eye off of the real enemy which has since reconstituted its strength within the borders of on 'ally' in the 'war on terror'.

Iraq is a failure, a monumental one, which our children, grand-children and likely even our great grand-children will be paying for. That will be Bush's legacy.

[KarlMarx]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070912/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

Obviously the war is going well enough for the President to feel confident to start this process.

At what point do we start admitting that we are winning this war?

Well Alex, I'll take that question as a Daily Double!!!!!

Answer is "when the Democrats are in complete control of both houses of Congress and the White House".

This all adds up to one thing, make Bush and the Republicans look bad at any cost, including national security.

Should the Democrats win in '08, then you will see a sea change in the Democrat talking points. The war will be going well, we have Al Queda on the run, etc. Who knows? Perhaps those pesky WMDs will show up!

What about those anti-war activists who are currently working hard to promote Democrat candidates? What will they think once the Democrats win control of the government and betray them? Here's the answer: they will be upset, and the Democrats won't care. Because, they served their purpose and no longer will have any use. The Democrats will ignore them, so will the MSM. In short, they're heading for the trash bin of history.

There is no honor among thieves or the Clintons (did I just repeat myself?)

[truthmatters]

Give it a rest. Had Bush been conducting this occupation properly, teh bleeding hearts would be shedding crocodile tears enough to reverse global warming.

What it all boils down to is I don't think the correct strategic decision was made by removing Saddam, and have thought that since the early 90s. But it doesn't matter a bit since the decision WAS made to do so.

Having decided to do so, I'd have taken him out and just left. Did n't do that either.

But no matter what happens, people such as yourself are going to present Iraq as a failure. If the Iraq gov't says "please leave now" and we do, failure according to you.

Bottom line is a win, or "mission accomplished let's go home" in Iraq would be disasterous to you libs and the DNC, so no matter what happens, you're going to paint it in a negative light.

There was a small window where I would have said "OK you were right and it turned out well" as far as Iraq goes. There was a momment after we went in and the people (well some of the people) seemed happy he was gone. If we had retained the Iraqi amy and kept the civil infrastructure intact and then held elections and retrained the amry and balanced its ranks with sunni ,shiia and Kurd alike we may havehad some success.

This was never part of the plan and you can tell because the only part of the post war in Iraq they planned was what to do with the oil. This right there tells you what their aims in Iraq were.They thought the oil was important enough to plan for but the Iraq post war peace was not worth planning for.Even with extensive planning the post war peace was a very shaky idea in this place which never in its history wanted to be a cohesive country. If they had done everything right it still very likely would have not worked out well.

Bush has said that he will not remove the troops while he is president and said that years ago. He knows it will not end well and has planned for years to dump the exit on the next president. He knows it will be a mess when we leave and he knows the next president will have to leave it wether its a D or an R. He is leaving the mess to the next guy. This means the soldiers who die until the next guy comes in are dying to save Bush some popularity points, CASE CLOSED. If he cared about thier lives he would do the pulling now.

[JohnDoe]

Did you ever stop to consider that the President sends them to war, not because he doesnt care i they live or die, but because he cares enough about all Americans enough to not want all of them to die.

Because if we dont win this war on terror, the American people will die. And there are men and women who are willing to fight and risk their own lives to secure the lives and freedom of their fellow Americans.

This is just another examples of how liberals cant deal with information that is contrary to their already reached conclusions.

Good morning Avatar,

The War on Terror and the war in Iraq ARE NOT the same war...

We must win this war on terror.....EVERYONE AGREES that terrorists are our enemies.... Iraqis were not our enemies... Alqaeda, Jihadists, are our enemies and there is a difference.... they are NOT the same.

jd

[jimnyc]

The War on Terror and the war in Iraq ARE NOT the same war...

The only way they are not the same is that Iraq is just a piece of the overall problem. But Iraq IS in fact a part of the war on terror.

[truthmatters]

Its the part which has drawn our assets away from the real enemy and spilled the blood of our bravest to make the war harder to fight.

Its the part that is dividing our country and making the world hate us because we look like opportunists.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. But The IslamoNeoliberals are invested in the Republican defeat on the *War on Islam*.
2. The IslamoNeoliberal Democratic Party, can not afford a win in 2008.
3. Not while this war is going on.
4. And President Bush isn't about to wind it down for them.
5. If anything he should ramp it up, and will more than likely will on Iran.
6. The more we invest in winning this *War on Islam, the less chance the IslamoNeoliberals will win back the office of The Presidency.
7. They're weak on defending America.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[truthmatters]

Sorry bout that,

1. But The IslamoNeoliberals are invested in the Republican defeat on the *War on Islam*.
2. The IslamoNeoliberal Democratic Party, can not afford a win in 2008.
3. Not while this war is going on.
4. And President Bush isn't about to wind it down for them.
5. If anything he should ramp it up, and will more than likely will on Iran.
6. The more we invest in winning this *War on Islam8, the less chance the IslamoNeoliberals will win back the office of The Presidency.
7. They're weak on defending America.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas



Sorry about that

1. its not just the Republicans who are fighting this war its the USA who is doing the fighting and a win is not possible in an occupation.
2.the USA constitution will not survive another neo con president.
3.This war will go on after we leave if we leave 20 years from now.
4.You got this one right.
5.showing its a political war for political points
6.We are not at war with Islam ,please, please,please run the campaign on a war on Islam.
7.Attacking the guys who could not harm us and abandoning the real fight in Afganistan is not protecting the US.

[bullypulpit]

Well Alex, I'll take that question as a Daily Double!!!!!

Answer is "when the Democrats are in complete control of both houses of Congress and the White House".

This all adds up to one thing, make Bush and the Republicans look bad at any cost, including national security.

Should the Democrats win in '08, then you will see a sea change in the Democrat talking points. The war will be going well, we have Al Queda on the run, etc. Who knows? Perhaps those pesky WMDs will show up!

What about those anti-war activists who are currently working hard to promote Democrat candidates? What will they think once the Democrats win control of the government and betray them? Here's the answer: they will be upset, and the Democrats won't care. Because, they served their purpose and no longer will have any use. The Democrats will ignore them, so will the MSM. In short, they're heading for the trash bin of history.

There is no honor among thieves or the Clintons (did I just repeat myself?)

Given that Bush has absolutely no credibility on anything to do with Iraq, every time he opens his mouth on the subject, he makes himself and the GOP look bad. They don't need any help from anyone else. And in recent months, he's done nothing but set Petraeus up to take the fall for the failure of Bush's "strategy" in Iraq.

As for thieves, how many billions of dollars have gone into the pockets of Bush administration crony corporations and other war profiteers since the occupation of Iraq began? Kinda makes the alleged larceny of the Clinton's look like taking peanuts from the bowl on the bar, don't it?

[KarlMarx]

Given that Bush has absolutely no credibility on anything to do with Iraq, every time he opens his mouth on the subject, he makes himself and the GOP look bad. They don't need any help from anyone else. And in recent months, he's done nothing but set Petraeus up to take the fall for the failure of Bush's "strategy" in Iraq.

As for thieves, how many billions of dollars have gone into the pockets of Bush administration crony corporations and other war profiteers since the occupation of Iraq began? Kinda makes the alleged larceny of the Clinton's look like taking peanuts from the bowl on the bar, don't it?
Actually, Bully, there is a difference between a matter of opinion and a matter of fact.

The Democrats seem to be winning when it comes to the matters of opinion. That is because the major news sources are sympathetic to their cause and that most people don't seem to bother to educate themselves on the matter. People simply are content to accept whatever Chris Matthews and CNN tell them.

Bush and the Republicans, on the other hand are winning when it comes to matters of fact. The fact is that Saddam is no longer with us and no longer a threat, there are fewer casualties in Iraq and by implication meaning that we are making true progress there.

The Clintons were, are, and always will be, corrupt. The Norman Hsu affair is just a sneak preview of things to come. It is interesting that it does not occur to anyone to call from an full Congressional investigation of Senator Clinton's campaign finances and televise it on CNN and CSPAN. It will serve the interests of the Democrat party to get Hillary off of the ballot, otherwise they will have a major culture of corruption going on at the White House again.

Oh, speaking of pocketing billions and corruption. How's that investigation into the United Nations oil for food program going? You know, the one where Saddam managed to get the UN to get 20 Billion dollars to wind up in the pockets of a lot of different people???? Don't hear too much about that now a days, do you?

[avatar4321]

Good morning Avatar,

The War on Terror and the war in Iraq ARE NOT the same war...

We must win this war on terror.....EVERYONE AGREES that terrorists are our enemies.... Iraqis were not our enemies... Alqaeda, Jihadists, are our enemies and there is a difference.... they are NOT the same.

jd

yes they are. Trying to separate them is just dishonest.

[truthmatters]

yes they are. Trying to separate them is just dishonest.


Trying to link them was the dishonest part

[avatar4321]

Trying to link them was the dishonest part

There was nothing dishonest about it truth. Its common sense. After 9/11 we realized that in order to win a war against terror we would have to go after terrorists and the regimes that support terror. Its undisputed that Saddam funded and encouraged terrorists. He had clear ties with Al Qaeda, unless you are going to attack the 9/11 commission report.

The idea that you seem to a war to change the regime in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the promise we made at the beginning of the war on terror to eliminate regimes that support terror is not only dishonest, but its stupid.

Next thing you are going to say is the Korean and Vietnam wars had nothing to do with the cold war.

[truthmatters]

There was nothing dishonest about it truth. Its common sense. After 9/11 we realized that in order to win a war against terror we would have to go after terrorists and the regimes that support terror. Its undisputed that Saddam funded and encouraged terrorists. He had clear ties with Al Qaeda, unless you are going to attack the 9/11 commission report.

The idea that you seem to a war to change the regime in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the promise we made at the beginning of the war on terror to eliminate regimes that support terror is not only dishonest, but its stupid.

Next thing you are going to say is the Korean and Vietnam wars had nothing to do with the cold war.

I have the 911 report in front of me could you tell me where it says Saddam and AQ had clear ties?

What chapter and page ?

[Gunny]

Had the Bush administration "conducted the occupation properly", we would likely have been out of Iraq by now. But he and certain members of his administration turned it into a cash cow for former employers and campaign contributors. Also known as war profiteering.

If Iraq says "Get out..." and we do, I would be most surprised. The failure in Iraq failure lies foursquare on the Bush administration in its mishandling of the occupation from day one. Its failure lies solely with the Bush administration for taking its collective eye off of the real enemy which has since reconstituted its strength within the borders of on 'ally' in the 'war on terror'.

Iraq is a failure, a monumental one, which our children, grand-children and likely even our great grand-children will be paying for. That will be Bush's legacy.

Hogwash. If Iraq is failure, it's only in the minds of people like you who wish it to be so, and the sell-job that's been on the US and rest of world since Day One.

That war-profiteering accusation is MORE THAN stale. The reason there is not clear-cut, decisive order in Iraq is because everytime a troop bends some Iraqi's eyelash your liberal media whips itself into a frenzy and goes after the military for excessive force, torture, etc.

No bully, the only place this war has been a REAL failure is in the MSM and the dreams of you lefties who believe you'll profit from it. Y'all were so fond of comparing it to Vietnam ... well, here's a Vietnam comparison for you ....

When the backlash of how shitty liberals treated our military and the war effort hits home, y'all are going to pay in spades politically, just as you did then.

[truthmatters]

There was nothing dishonest about it truth. Its common sense. After 9/11 we realized that in order to win a war against terror we would have to go after terrorists and the regimes that support terror. Its undisputed that Saddam funded and encouraged terrorists. He had clear ties with Al Qaeda, unless you are going to attack the 9/11 commission report.

The idea that you seem to a war to change the regime in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the promise we made at the beginning of the war on terror to eliminate regimes that support terror is not only dishonest, but its stupid.

Next thing you are going to say is the Korean and Vietnam wars had nothing to do with the cold war.

Let me break some news to you avatar the 911 report does not say this anywhere in it.

No one says it anymore but those who are still fooled by the lies during the lead up to the war.

[Gunny]

Let me break some news to you avatar the 911 report does not say this anywhere in it.

No one says it anymore but those who are still fooled by the lies during the lead up to the war.

Appears to me the only people fooled were those lefties NOW making accusations. Pretty simple math.

Guess y'all just aren't very bright since nothing was said that would lead one to the conclusion you claim.

[truthmatters]

Appears to me the only people fooled were those lefties NOW making accusations. Pretty simple math.

Guess y'all just aren't very bright since nothing was said that would lead one to the conclusion you claim.



"You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror". George W. Bush, September 25, 2002.
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties." --George W. Bush, September 17, 2003.

[Dilloduck]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070914/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

Great news !

[Dilloduck]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070914/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

Great news !

no wild cheering or fireworks ?

[Gaffer]

The libs will not be happy with anything less than an unmitigated defeat.

[gabosaurus]

I like it. Bush is once again proving that he is a total idiot with no comprehension of what is going on around him. Even members of his own party and military hierarchy have acknowledged that Iraq is a total failure. Yet Dubya is unable to muster the brain function to accept their assessment.
Reminds me of the Japanese at the end of WWII. All signs pointed to defeat, yet the military government refused to accept it. They were not going to give up until the last soldier had died. Then they would blame it on somebody else.
The Bushies are the same way. If they can prolong the war until 2009, someone else will have to come up with a solution. Like the Japanese, they have their own state-run media and fanatical brainwashed followers ready to keep fighting, no what the cost (to someone else, of course, not them).
I say more power to the Bushies. The blood will continue to run, and it is ALL on their hands.

[manu1959]

I like it. Bush is once again proving that he is a total idiot with no comprehension of what is going on around him. Even members of his own party and military hierarchy have acknowledged that Iraq is a total failure. Yet Dubya is unable to muster the brain function to accept their assessment.
Reminds me of the Japanese at the end of WWII. All signs pointed to defeat, yet the military government refused to accept it. They were not going to give up until the last soldier had died. Then they would blame it on somebody else.
The Bushies are the same way. If they can prolong the war until 2009, someone else will have to come up with a solution. Like the Japanese, they have their own state-run media and fanatical brainwashed followers ready to keep fighting, no what the cost (to someone else, of course, not them).
I say more power to the Bushies. The blood will continue to run, and it is ALL on their hands.

if a democrat wins in 08 and they don't pull out the troops....then what will you say?

[Gunny]

if a democrat wins in 08 and they don't pull out the troops....then what will you say?

I guess Gabby couldn't stand being somewhat moderate. I see she's ranting again.

[Dilloduck]

I guess Gabby couldn't stand being somewhat moderate. I see she's ranting again.

She's a good barometer---if she rants, I know everything is going great. :laugh2:

[Gunny]

She's a good barometer---if she rants, I know everything is going great. :laugh2:

Good point.:salute:

[manu1959]

I guess Gabby couldn't stand being somewhat moderate. I see she's ranting again.

well it has been 28 days.....

[JohnDoe]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070914/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

Great news !

i am honestly not sure anymore what good news really is, when it comes to the iraq war...

it just seems that if we are not going to redeploy quickly, and are just going to reduce ourselves down to presurge levels, that we are setting ourselves up for the same ol' same ol'...

we need a plan to win, with a vengence IF you guys and your CIC is insisting on us staying....

i think they probably should put in the 500k men, give it a year at most, and win this occupation, ONCE AND FOR ALL....

this twiddling of thumbs method has got to be demoralizing for the troops...
having them being indescriminately picked off....while showing no major progress...the same ol' same ol'... outside of some small improvements like in Anbar prov.

and gees, how about a little help from our friends at this point? The Brits have gotten tired....making iraq livable again will benefit the EU even more than us imo...

jd

[Gaffer]

After the combat troops are withdrawn there will be, probably two, permanent bases established in iraq. Some sort of treaty agreement will be signed. The bases will be used to support other actions in the region and are an insurance against any other countries trying to invade iraq. Nobodies going to invade a country with American military personnel stationed there. My guesstimate is there will be about 30,000.

[LiberalNation]

That's only gona happen if those bases can be protected long term without US casualities and the Iraqi government doesn't try an kick us out. Americans wont stand for daily/weekly Ameican deaths in the long term. You already hear the rumbles of dissatisfaction. The repubs were hammered last elections and will be hammered again in the next over this war.

[JohnDoe]

but right now, even with the extra 30k, we are still only ''pushing'' the violence around....sure it's down in bagdad, but it is way up, out side of bagdad....because the extra surge of soldiers, pushed them out? as soon as we dwindle dwn, they will come right back, won't they?

[manu1959]

but right now, even with the extra 30k, we are still only ''pushing'' the violence around....sure it's down in bagdad, but it is way up, out side of bagdad....because the extra surge of soldiers, pushed them out? as soon as we dwindle dwn, they will come right back, won't they?

not if we kill them......did they just capture 80 up north

[Dilloduck]

i am honestly not sure anymore what good news really is, when it comes to the iraq war...

it just seems that if we are not going to redeploy quickly, and are just going to reduce ourselves down to presurge levels, that we are setting ourselves up for the same ol' same ol'...
But as of NOW we don't know anything other than the number of troops "over there" will be going down. Something I think everyone wants
we need a plan to win, with a vengence IF you guys and your CIC is insisting on us staying....
We still have one--wind it down as Iraqis pick it up
i think they probably should put in the 500k men, give it a year at most, and win this occupation, ONCE AND FOR ALL....
Oh ya--I can see the country going for that idea.
this twiddling of thumbs method has got to be demoralizing for the troops...
having them being indescriminately picked off....while showing no major progress...the same ol' same ol'... outside of some small improvements like in Anbar prov.
it's a shame to accuse our troops of merely twiddling their thumbs:slap:
and gees, how about a little help from our friends at this point? The Brits have gotten tired....making iraq livable again will benefit the EU even more than us imo...
I don't give a rats ass what the EU does.
jd

do you?

[Dilloduck]

That's only gona happen if those bases can be protected long term without US casualities and the Iraqi government doesn't try an kick us out. Americans wont stand for daily/weekly Ameican deaths in the long term. You already hear the rumbles of dissatisfaction. The repubs were hammered last elections and will be hammered again in the next over this war.

We shall see---the Repubs got hammered because of a lot of things but the dems haven't exactly made everyone happy either. Rumbles of dissatisfaction are an everyday thing in America.

[BoogyMan]

I like it. Bush is once again proving that he is a total idiot with no comprehension of what is going on around him. Even members of his own party and military hierarchy have acknowledged that Iraq is a total failure. Yet Dubya is unable to muster the brain function to accept their assessment.
Reminds me of the Japanese at the end of WWII. All signs pointed to defeat, yet the military government refused to accept it. They were not going to give up until the last soldier had died. Then they would blame it on somebody else.
The Bushies are the same way. If they can prolong the war until 2009, someone else will have to come up with a solution. Like the Japanese, they have their own state-run media and fanatical brainwashed followers ready to keep fighting, no what the cost (to someone else, of course, not them).
I say more power to the Bushies. The blood will continue to run, and it is ALL on their hands.

When the DNC or whatever borg-like collective passes out this mental feces for you guys to post, do you ever read it first? Egads man, this is getting part of what the mouthbreathing knuckledraggers on the radical side of the left has been screaming for, troop cuts.

This simply proves the dishonesty of your position and the blackness of your soul.

[Gaffer]

i am honestly not sure anymore what good news really is, when it comes to the iraq war...

it just seems that if we are not going to redeploy quickly, and are just going to reduce ourselves down to presurge levels, that we are setting ourselves up for the same ol' same ol'...

we need a plan to win, with a vengence IF you guys and your CIC is insisting on us staying....

i think they probably should put in the 500k men, give it a year at most, and win this occupation, ONCE AND FOR ALL....

this twiddling of thumbs method has got to be demoralizing for the troops...
having them being indescriminately picked off....while showing no major progress...the same ol' same ol'... outside of some small improvements like in Anbar prov.

and gees, how about a little help from our friends at this point? The Brits have gotten tired....making iraq livable again will benefit the EU even more than us imo...

jd

The way the surge is working is, our troops go into an area. They take on the bad guys and either kill them or drive them out. other troops, usually iraqi move in to police and secure the area while the initial troops move on out in pursuit of the enemy. This is repeated over and over. Along with this has come the fact that the local iraqis don't like what they experienced from the al queda types and are turning on them. They are coming to our side and realizing the government can help them. They are joining the army and police in droves.

Where our forces use to go in and clean out an area then pull out, leaving the enemy the chance to move back in, we are not doing that anymore. We or the iraqis are staying and al queda can't return. al queda is fast running out of places to hide and are being pointed out by the locals.

Our soldiers are not sitting around waiting to be shot at. They are constantly on patrol, and taking the fight to the enemy. That's how you win wars. By going out and looking for the enemy and putting him on the defensive. And when he runs you chase him down.

what is demoralizing to the troops is hearing the reports from home that the war is lost and the troops need to be brought home now. The troops are scratching their heads and saying "what do you mean lost? We are kicking ass over here." They are there and they are seeing the results of their efforts first hand. And its not what's being reported back home.

There are 40 other countries with troops or support in iraq. Much as the lib media wants you to think otherwise, there are plenty of others helping, you just don't hear about them. Those that don't have troops there are supplying material support, money and training facilities.

The surge is working and security will be established. The big question is will the iraqi government be able to hold itself together and rule. The political side of this thing is the most precarious.

To pull out and run now just means all the dead and wounded over the years were in vain. The first soldier to die made iraq a must win situation as far as I'm concerned. :salute:

[JohnDoe]

But as of NOW we don't know anything other than the number of troops "over there" will be going down. Something I think everyone wants

Sure we do, we know that by next july we will remove the 30k, surge increase. Heard patraeus say it myself! to bring it down to presurge levels, about 130k.



We still have one--wind it down as Iraqis pick it up

Sure, we won the War BIGTIME!!! .... but the occupation was a disaster and still is....no looking through rose tinted glasses for me on this one!

and honestly, how long have we been hearing the crapola about the iraqis picking it up now.....4 years? they have made very little headway with that and i wouldn't hold your breath on that one!



Oh ya--I can see the country going for that idea.

the country isn't going for this idea of his either, and if Bush REALLY wants to help the iraqis, stop the civil war killings, which are 95% of the deaths taking place, keeping the exact same strategy that we have had for 4 years is not the way to go imo. i think a just war, gives the country it defeated safety and security.... we are failing at this.... we either need to leave or we need to put in the troops we need to CHANGE things.



it's a shame to accuse our troops of merely twiddling their thumbs

it's a shame you try to twist my words and put blame on to the troops instead of the CIC. :slap:



I don't give a rats ass what the EU does. Do you?

they paid, 100% for gulf war 1.

help with loads of bodies....soldiers, could go a long way in getting our men and women home sooner.... i would eat crow for that....it could save some of our guy's lives!!

[Gunny]

Sure we do, we know that by next july we will remove the 30k, surge increase. Heard patraeus say it myself! to bring it down to presurge levels, about 130k.




Sure, we won the War BIGTIME!!! .... but the occupation was a disaster and still is....no looking through rose tinted glasses for me on this one!

and honestly, how long have we been hearing the crapola about the iraqis picking it up now.....4 years? they have made very lirrle headway with that and i wouldn't hold your breath on that one!




the country isn't going for this idea of his either, and if Bush REALLY wants to help the iraqis, stop the civil war killings, which are 95% of the deaths taking place, keeping the exact same strategy that we have had for 4 years is not the way to go imo. i think a just war, gives the country it defeated safety and security.... we are failing at this.... we either need to leave or we need to put in the troops we need to CHANGE things.




it's a shame you try to twist my words and put blame on to the troops instead of the CIC. :slap:




they paid, 100% for gulf war 1.

help with loads of bodies....soldiers, could go a long way in getting our men and women home sooner.... i would eat crow for that....it could save some of our guy's lives!!

Does Michael Moore write your stuff?:poke:

[LiberalNation]

Wow, can't debate the points JD made there gunny.

[JohnDoe]

Does Michael Moore write your stuff?:poke:

NOOOOOOOO, I do! :D only without the millions coming in to the kitty!!!

And your debate on the comments is WHERE? I think i would have to agree with LN's comments...

jd

[Dilloduck]

Sure we do, we know that by next july we will remove the 30k, surge increase. Heard patraeus say it myself! to bring it down to presurge levels, about 130k.

The military will determine troops levels by continually assessing the situation. Another report will be delivered in March. Patraeus discussed the current plan to bring troops home. It's not set in stone. It can be done faster or slower depending on what Iraq does and what the enemy does.


Sure, we won the War BIGTIME!!! .... but the occupation was a disaster and still is....no looking through rose tinted glasses for me on this one!
Occupation is NOT an accurate description of what our troops mission is.
and honestly, how long have we been hearing the crapola about the iraqis picking it up now.....4 years? they have made very little headway with that and i wouldn't hold your breath on that one!
We have been told over and over that tihs was gonig to take a long time and we would have to be patient. This is not a war for those who expect immediate gratification.



the country isn't going for this idea of his either, and if Bush REALLY wants to help the iraqis, stop the civil war killings, which are 95% of the deaths taking place, keeping the exact same strategy that we have had for 4 years is not the way to go imo. i think a just war, gives the country it defeated safety and security.... we are failing at this.... we either need to leave or we need to put in the troops we need to CHANGE things.

Suggesting we send 500 K troops is sort of an odd idea coming from a Dove. The surge is a NEW strategy. Claiming that the US has not altered its battle plans is an old lie driven by old liberal talking points. Are you unable to process new information or are you just stubbornly clinging to old arguments?



it's a shame you try to twist my words and put blame on to the troops instead of the CIC. :slap:

Stating that what our troops are doing now is twiddling their thumbs and waiting to get picked off by a sniper is simply not true


they paid, 100% for gulf war 1.

help with loads of bodies....soldiers, could go a long way in getting our men and women home sooner.... i would eat crow for that....it could save some of our guy's lives!!

This has nothing to do with eating crow. We didn't kick any Brits out of Iraq----------they left of their own accord

[TheStripey1]

You seem happy enough for our troops to continue shedding their blood as a salve to the ego of the man we call..."Mr. President".


There's no reasoning with the unreasonable, bully... you should know that by now.

and besides... the war mongers don't give a rat's ass how many of our troopers die, as long as it ain't them.

They have an insatiable blood lust.

[avatar4321]

There's no reasoning with the unreasonable, bully... you should know that by now.

and besides... the war mongers don't give a rat's ass how many of our troopers die, as long as it ain't them.

They have an insatiable blood lust.

Insatiable blood lust... right. That is exactly why we are acting to defeat our enemies before we face global genocide. Because we love death soooooo much.

Do you guys even stop to think about what you are saying?

[JohnDoe]

The way the surge is working is, our troops go into an area. They take on the bad guys and either kill them or drive them out. other troops, usually iraqi move in to police and secure the area while the initial troops move on out in pursuit of the enemy. This is repeated over and over. Along with this has come the fact that the local iraqis don't like what they experienced from the al queda types and are turning on them. They are coming to our side and realizing the government can help them. They are joining the army and police in droves.

Your Plan sounds like a good plan Gaffer.

But I do not believe that this is what is happening because violence in Bagdhad went down BUT violence OUTSIDE of Bagdhad is up 70%, and MORE Iraqis have died this year through only August THAN ALL of last year?

Those figures are a reality and this means to me, that what we gain in Bagdhad we lose outside of Bagdhad, AND that they are NOT following your method of taking care of them....following the thugs when they leave and getting them dead or alive....but I could be wrong, because the increased deaths could just be the Civil War, sectarian violence.... Because I did hear the Iraqi Prison population is up 50% this year so maybe that comes from the surge and captives, but I am uncertain?

And also Gaffer, in Anbar, it was the local tribal gvt, not the "federal" Iraqi gvt that has helped them overcome Alqaeda, from all that I have read on it?

Where our forces use to go in and clean out an area then pull out, leaving the enemy the chance to move back in, we are not doing that anymore. We or the iraqis are staying and al queda can't return. al queda is fast running out of places to hide and are being pointed out by the locals.

You see, this is why I think if they really wanted this to work they would have MORE men on the ground, so that they can go after them and ALSO have enough people to stay in Bagdhad to keep them from coming back in...

But there is one thing, it seems as though you are blaming the violence on Alqaeda, and even according to the Military, Alqaeda's doings is ONLY 5% of the total violent deaths? How can you justify this?

to me, this means that the real war over there is truely a "civil War", sectarian violence instead of Alqaeda?


Our soldiers are not sitting around waiting to be shot at. They are constantly on patrol, and taking the fight to the enemy.

What does, "taking the fight to the enemy" mean Gaffer...? Shouldn't we be chasing alqaeda all over the world like Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Sudan and so on and so forth where their KNOWN numbers are much higher than in Iraq?

That's how you win wars. By going out and looking for the enemy and putting him on the defensive. And when he runs you chase him down.

Gaffer, 5% of the violence in Iraq is caused by Alqaeda. 95% of the violence is not Alqaeda related....95%!!!! So I ask you, are Iraqis the "enemy" that you speak about in this war? And if they are the enemy are they Shiite or are they Sunni that we are at war with?



what is demoralizing to the troops is hearing the reports from home that the war is lost and the troops need to be brought home now. The troops are scratching their heads and saying "what do you mean lost? We are kicking ass over here." They are there and they are seeing the results of their efforts first hand. And its not what's being reported back home.

Well, I have been in constant communications with a friend depoyed in Iraq, due home any day now in fact!!! yippppeee on that! And he didn't really have the same thoughts about the subject as you and he IS on the ground over there, and in fact was all excited that he got to shake Bush's hand on Labor Day....so I guess it does depend on who you talk to....?

And did you see the guys stationed over there that were glued to the TV watching Petraeus testify before congress that CNN intervued...they didn't think the way you do either?

Not that I don't think the majority of soldiers are doing a fine job!!!!

This has nothing, absolutely NOTHING to do with the "job" the soldiers are doing....this has to do with the Brass and the Administration's moves in this war over the last 4.5 years...

And for heaven's sake, WE WON THE WAR, we toppled saddam and his Army, BIGTIME.... I hate it too when people use the term losing the war, I even catch myself doing it sometimes and then I have to remind myself, WE WON THE WAR.... the occupation, well...that's another story that isn't over yet.

There are 40 other countries with troops or support in iraq. Much as the lib media wants you to think otherwise, there are plenty of others helping, you just don't hear about them. Those that don't have troops there are supplying material support, money and training facilities.

There are 26 countires left, including ourselves left there, all others have left. I heard that this morning on the news, and outside of Britain I believe, they said that all of those 24 other countries have less than 1000 soldiers each, committed to this war.

And NOT ENOUGH MONEY! :eek: The Eu and some of the middle east countries paid for Gulf War 1, 100%... Our soldiers did the work but they paid for it. I just think they could have done more this time around, and when things started to become unglued there, even when we made the move unilaterally (basically) to go in there that made some of them upset, THEY SHOULD HAVE come to our rescue after that Mosque bombing and all hell started to break loose.

I tell ya what, Petraeus said he didn't know if "fighting them over there" was going to make us any safer here in the USA....but I can guarantee you this, IF ANYONE is going to become safer from this move with a success in Iraq, IT IS THE E.U. and Israel....and I do think that they could contribute, at least financially, a tad more....AND YES money matters, it pays for more feet on the ground imo!

The surge is working and security will be established. The big question is will the iraqi government be able to hold itself together and rule. The political side of this thing is the most precarious.

I agree this is the Big Question! And I can't help but feel that it just ain't gonna happen.... marriages are being broken up right now, neighborhoods that had sunnis living side by side for litterally a thousand years have segregated their neighborhoods it is so bad between the sunnis and the shiites...

and there is no gvt left basically, other than Malachi, a bunch walked out this past month...though I think I heard on the news this morning the different factions that split the Parliment ARE considering speaking to eachother and trying to reconcile...

The Oil Contracts are the real problem, they need to have an agreement between the three.... but guess what, the Kurds signed an oil contract with an American company ,no less. and now the whole country may fall, because there is nothing to hold them together, like sharing the oil, would have done.... I just heard this on the news tonight.... maybe they can make this Mr Hunt, who signed his own contract for Kurdish oil relinquish it and the Kurd oil could be added back in to the negotiations again....?

President Bush said it was essential to us leaving, having an oil contract between the THREE....to tie them together and make them stronger as a country.

Can a miracle happen, yes, I just don't forsee it.... there is so much hatred between the oppressed shiites and the newly oppressed sunnis that only an act from God can help them, imo

To pull out and run now just means all the dead and wounded over the years were in vain. The first soldier to die made iraq a must win situation as far as I'm concerned. :salute:

I don't agree with your last statement, though I can see how you would think it!

To keep adding more dead, to justify the dead already, it makes no sense to me.

I think, without a kazillion more men over there that things will stay the same, some more progress and some of that progress taken back, and with some more dead, added daily, of our own guys with none of the Progress sticking BECAUSE the Sunni and Shia hate eachother, I mean really hate eachother now, enough to be killing nearly a couple of thousand people a month!

HOW do you make people like eachother and get along?

Anyway, I have been working on this response for a couple of hours now off and on, along with some other chores, I apologize for it being so long! yikes!

jd

[Gunny]

NOOOOOOOO, I do! :D only without the millions coming in to the kitty!!!

And your debate on the comments is WHERE? I think i would have to agree with LN's comments...

jd

What comments would that be? On this topic? Feel free to browse through this very forum at your leisure. Nobody has to guess what I'm thinking.

[Kathianne]

Good morning Avatar,

The War on Terror and the war in Iraq ARE NOT the same war...

We must win this war on terror.....EVERYONE AGREES that terrorists are our enemies.... Iraqis were not our enemies... Alqaeda, Jihadists, are our enemies and there is a difference.... they are NOT the same.

jd

Ok, so in your view, we should leave Iraq and go to? Iran? Syria? Russia? Germany? Where?

[Gunny]

There's no reasoning with the unreasonable, bully... you should know that by now.

and besides... the war mongers don't give a rat's ass how many of our troopers die, as long as it ain't them.

They have an insatiable blood lust.

Good point. And bully is so steeped in his hatred for Bush he can't look at anything that has to do with him in an objective manner.

Guess I COULD say the same for you.:poke:

[JohnDoe]

Ok, so in your view, we should leave Iraq and go to? Iran? Syria? Russia? Germany? Where?Why? Are you "playing the teacher giving a test " here Kathianne....? ;)

You READ alot. Where do you think Alqaeda is hanging out in droves? Russia, Germany as you suggested?

Are you implying that we are in Iraq soley because "we Can be" verses being in Germany, russia etc, where alqaeda really is, and we can't be?


From what I hear they are in droves in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, indonesia and some other hot spots in Africa, and probably right here in the usa...

And yes, they are spread throughout the world with cells but this is where leadership and Prioritizing comes in...you hit them where it hurts, and that would be nailing Bin Laden, in my opinion...right now we seem to be on the defense instead of on the offense...in getting Alqaeda where it REALLY MATTERS....

Though, God forbid, That I, have an opinion on this....cuz I never served a "day" in the military.... :eek: (That was for dmp, not you Kathianne)

[Gaffer]

Your Plan sounds like a good plan Gaffer.

But I do not believe that this is what is happening because violence in Bagdhad went down BUT violence OUTSIDE of Bagdhad is up 70%, and MORE Iraqis have died this year through only August THAN ALL of last year?

Those figures are a reality and this means to me, that what we gain in Bagdhad we lose outside of Bagdhad, AND that they are NOT following your method of taking care of them....following the thugs when they leave and getting them dead or alive....but I could be wrong, because the increased deaths could just be the Civil War, sectarian violence.... Because I did hear the Iraqi Prison population is up 50% this year so maybe that comes from the surge and captives, but I am uncertain?

And also Gaffer, in Anbar, it was the local tribal gvt, not the "federal" Iraqi gvt that has helped them overcome Alqaeda, from all that I have read on it?

The violence outside of baghdad is going to be up because that is where the enemy is being forced too. The violence is up because they are fighting the US and iraqi troops there. What we gain in baghdad will spread to the outlying areas. My method is just the basic one that would work. I'm sure there are many factors that would change the plans as they go. An area with a lot of civilians and lots of enemy forces has to be dealt with carefully.

The prison populations is up because they are catching a lot more of these guys. That's a trend that will continue.

In anbar the tribes are joining our forces. And helping in fighting al queda. They are also joining the army and police in droves. They are siding with their own government to drive the bad guys out. They are putting a trust in their government, at least for now.


You see, this is why I think if they really wanted this to work they would have MORE men on the ground, so that they can go after them and ALSO have enough people to stay in Bagdhad to keep them from coming back in...

But there is one thing, it seems as though you are blaming the violence on Alqaeda, and even according to the Military, Alqaeda's doings is ONLY 5% of the total violent deaths? How can you justify this?

to me, this means that the real war over there is truely a "civil War", sectarian violence instead of Alqaeda?

More troops would be nice but not practical. There would be no way to rotate troops out for long breaks if they put in that many men. The deployment strain would be far worse than it is now.

Most of the fighting being done, as far as I can tell in my readings, is with al queda in the baghdad area. The sunnis had allied themselves with al queda and those that remain with them are being considered al queda. The shea are a different story. They are being targeted too and are militia, mostly loyal to al sadr. They are supported by iran and most of the murders and executions are being done by them. Of the two they are the most dangerous. They should have been taken out a long time ago. I think that was one of the biggest mistakes of the entire four years.

There is a sectarian war going on there. Not a civil war. They are not fighting the government. They are fighting a religious group. They are looking to have the controlling interest in the government, but not to over throw it. And the one that wants the shea in control of the government is iran.


What does, "taking the fight to the enemy" mean Gaffer...? Shouldn't we be chasing alqaeda all over the world like Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Sudan and so on and so forth where their KNOWN numbers are much higher than in Iraq?

We are chasing al queda all over the world. And there is action going on that you will never hear about. We are fighting in Afghanistan and along the pakistan border. I would bet we even have agents and special forces inside pakistan.Unfortunately we can't just go busting into every country that has elements of al queda. Would be nice, but not practical.

Taking the fight to the enemy means to go after him on his turf where ever possible. Going after him before he comes to you. Instead of reacting to his attacks we make him react to ours.


Gaffer, 5% of the violence in Iraq is caused by Alqaeda. 95% of the violence is not Alqaeda related....95%!!!! So I ask you, are Iraqis the "enemy" that you speak about in this war? And if they are the enemy are they Shiite or are they Sunni that we are at war with?

where ever you got this, they need to clarify a bit better. How are they referring to violence? Attacks on people? Attacks on US forces? Sunni and shea militia going at it?

al queda is fighting the US and attacking those iraqis that don't follow their program. The sunni militia are, in less cases now, fighting the US and shea militia. The shea militia are fighting the US and sunni militia. In most cases the US is not the main target for these groups. We then have iranian agents arming and encouraging both groups. Even getting involved in attacks themselves. And finally we have the ali babas. Thieves, gangsters, general cut throats taking advantage of a lack of law and order.

where the troops on the ground are lumping all fighters into al queda, apparently statisticians are not.


Well, I have been in constant communications with a friend depoyed in Iraq, due home any day now in fact!!! yippppeee on that! And he didn't really have the same thoughts about the subject as you and he IS on the ground over there, and in fact was all excited that he got to shake Bush's hand on Labor Day....so I guess it does depend on who you talk to....?

And did you see the guys stationed over there that were glued to the TV watching Petraeus testify before congress that CNN intervued...they didn't think the way you do either?

Not that I don't think the majority of soldiers are doing a fine job!!!!

This has nothing, absolutely NOTHING to do with the "job" the soldiers are doing....this has to do with the Brass and the Administration's moves in this war over the last 4.5 years...

And for heaven's sake, WE WON THE WAR, we toppled saddam and his Army, BIGTIME.... I hate it too when people use the term losing the war, I even catch myself doing it sometimes and then I have to remind myself, WE WON THE WAR.... the occupation, well...that's another story that isn't over yet.

Your friend has a hands on perspective there and will be a great source of information. Just don't pump him. Ask a few questions and let him volunteer the rest. He may not want to discuss it at all.

I make it a point never to watch cnn. If they found soldiers to bad mouth the war, they did a lot of digging to find them, or took what they said out of context.

The soldiers are doing an excellent job. It's just not being reported as it should. It's the media that is doing a poor job.

Yes everything going on has to do with the brass and the administration. Poor planning, misdirected planning, and circumstances can all effect the outcomes of situations. Most of what we have today is due to poor forecasting of what would happen if...

Yes we did win the war. It was won three weeks after it started. We have not won the rebuilding effort yet. Its not truely an occupation, its more, by default, nation building. something Bush said he did not want to do, but due to circumstances he is having too.

Hope your friend gets home soon. Shake his hand for me. and let me know when he gets in.

I think I'll let the rest of this go till later as its getting late.