That sh!thole as you describe contains the worlds vast oil reserves. And if you haven't noticed, that's what fuels our economy. I honor those who have served, and hope that we keep the resolve to see it through to make that region of the world somewhat stable. And at the very least, keep the oil reserves out of the hands of Islamic fanatics. Their will be no honor "re-deploying" (surrender) our military while the region goes into deeper chaos. We virtually have no choice but to stay and see it through. I just wish Bush would kick out the media, Tell the Democrats to stuff it, and do the job correctly. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to have the backbone to do that. Well 1 out of 3 is a start. He's pretty much told the Democrats to pack sand last week. I'll take it.

Why kick out the media? Is a free press dangerous to the preservation of oil reserves?

Well, when they work against you in a time of war, they are. Did you know that FDR threatened to throw the editors of the Chicago Tribune in prison during WW2? We now have a hostile media in the USA that is working to demoralize the war effort. They don't report any of the good news, and they agonize over every death. What's the purpose other than to demoralize? When they work against us, I say deny them access to the battlefield. Absolutely. If they're balanced and can leverage good and bad, then give them access. The point is, the "free" media is only free to print the bad.

You don't even know what Bush's plan is. Their isn't one. We have a deficient president who can't seem to understand that 'Hey, this isn't working! Lets try something else'. He completely ignored the Iraq panel.
I'll tell you what this presidents plan is seeing as nobody's figured it out yet. Keep the troops in Iraq doing the same thing that isn't working then dump it on the next president. The voters told this failure that the same thing is not working so change it. Yes, even the average American voter can see what this president doesn't. You tell these Iraqi leaders to get off their butts and do their jobs for once and start right now or we stop propping them up.
Stop trying to put western psychology in a middle eastern mind. Make them put up.

Bush admitted mistakes, and also said he was changing tactics. What else do you want? You want him to give a press conference on what those tactics are? Do you want Bush to give a national press conference on what locations troops will be at, their compositions, and when we'll move? Why not invite Muqtada Al-Sadr to the front row? I don't think you or other Democrats are that important that yuou need to know exaclty how a commander in chief, his military advisors or military leaders are going to commence from this point. You Democrats are too full of yourselves.

BINGO!! Even you see it yet you steadfastly support a president who doesn't!

I don't think you read me correctly sometimes. Bush is not advocating surrender. He is advocating a change of tactics. That's actually a good move. If we surrender and do what the Democrats want with "re-deploying" (surrender), that's what will lead to out and out civil war with no hope at all. Despite your wish to call it a lost cause, we ain't there yet. I know you are desperate to demoralize this nation into believing it though. :nope:

Another telling poll:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286755.stm

:hmm:

ahh, always trust a poll, counted in tiny percents of the world population...:roll:

What I bingo'd is you finally recognize that Bush has been lying and the blind faith crowd are finally opening their eyes. More Republican politicians are realizing Bush has lost all sense of reality and are swapping sides. Maybe now we will be able to make the Iraqi's work for their own country instead of them believing we will prop them up indefinitely.

Thats a firece arrogant attitude to take, Brad. I know I wouldnt react well to it.

Guys who invaded my country: you must be responsible for your own country,

I agree to a point. When a nations own citizens refuses to stand up for themselves for five years and depend on the U.S. to prop themselves up because they don't want to........... Where do you set the limit?
Yes we were the aggressors and invaded. Yes by international law we are responsible for their well being and safety but where do you draw the line? What do you do when they refuse to take responsibility? We can defend them from foreign forces. We can provide the money and services for their well being but we can't defend them from themselves if they don't want to.

It was a FOX news poll. That is all.

Repeated link: We owe the Iraqis exactly nothing.

As for a change in strategy: Victory in Iraq.
How and where did you "bingo" that people like Sea Demon accept the claim that Bush lied? :hmm:

I made no such assertions of Bush lying. I think all the "lying" charges are totally bogus anyway. Bush is putting more heat on the Iraqi's because we have a two party system. And one side of that equation....your side, is intent on surrender, weakness, betrayal, and lack of foresight. So I think Bush is realizing that because of the whining from the left, and their own lack of any plan whatsoever, he's got to put some heat on these people before he leaves. Republicans like Hagel won't last anyway in the long run. So who cares?

Put it this way, getting our troops out of Iraq "as fast as possible" is not a solution to the problems. Finding a way to end the chaos, establish security, and root out and destroy terrorist elements is the winning end for the USA here. That's what Bush is working toward. Of course that means Bush wins and looks good. And you guys can't have that, so you root against the USA and whine that we have to get the troops out now and call it a failure. Despite those pleas from you lefties, Bush ain't doing that. Thankfully. So any point you could have made is totally moot. ;)

Thanks AL. :up: And excellent links there. There is absolutely no substitute for victory in war.

I suggest you carefully read both articles I linked to and not base you opinion of them on their misleading titles.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011101572.html

In another interview with German newspaper Die Welt, Brzezinski also said, that a military solution would be possible ,maybe, if having 500000 troops in Iraq and letting them brutally brake lose and wage war like it was done in the past. What reminds me of the destruction of a Vietnamese city, "in order to save it". The president's plan he called pointless, a lost cause, and expressing nothing, and he said that in the long view america has to accept that it's mere presence in Iraq alone is what enflames the conflict more and more - which makes it a logical conclusion that the 26000 additional troops will not ease but increase the violance. The declared goal of taking on the militias of Al Sadr he put into relation by referring to their numbers (60000) and the unifying effect such a direct confrontation would have, and that it escapes one's understanding how a growing of one'S enemy's numbers and cooperation standards should be a road to victory. Next he said that all neighbours in the region have a legitimate interest in what happens in Iraq, and that this is a valid demand for being taken into account - even if the US interests is different. US interests therefore do not rule out Iran's interests, for example. One must not like it, but you can't come around Iran. He cautiously expressed his fear that Bush may try to escape the mess he has brought the US into by trying to widen the conflict and get Syria and Iran involved in fighting, so that the war will widen. He compared the atmosphere of rejecting and/or fleeing reality to the level the WH has seen during Watergate. Here, like in the WP interview and in other comments before he expressed that you cannot gain anything anymore if you behave like a colonial power. These ages are gone.

One must not like his conclusions, but I can't see how one can avoid their content
eternally. Take them as an illustration of how stupid and self-hurting this invasion has been.

http://www.welt.de/data/2007/01/23/1186054.html

I'll tell that to (R) Sen Warren. I wouldn't call making the Iraqi's do their jobs running. It might be okay with you to sacrifice U.S. troops needlessly but not me. Put our strength in making them take care of themselves. Your way has already proved to be the way of the loser.

Ho hum. Where does one begin?

First off, that whole thing about the left being hell bent on surrender and betrayal and all that yap, I think i'll pass. Seriosuly, if we cant elevate the conversation above "your side is chicken!" with absolutly absurd comments like this, is there really a point?

As for the left not having a plan, you may have a point. (with the exception of Biden, who will scream his plan until somebody listens. Including TIm Russert.) However, throwing anoter 20'000 troops into a conflict with no clear objectives, no time table, and no support at home or in the international community isnt exactly a stellar plan either. Ask Lyndon Johnson.

Foresight?!!? Invasion without exit strategy? You kidding?

As for the poll that started this conversation, it is an obviously skewed poll with an obvious agenda, but a network that makes no bones about its bias under the guise of not being bias. It's a joke, pure and simple, designed to be used by ....well,...those who see it conveniently fit to be used. :hmm: