Democrats will go after osama the same way they did during the 90's.  These are people that constantly complain that we don't "respect" other countries, and that we "make people mad" by our actions, but now these people (on here also) try to tell us how Bush has failed and try to hint that we should take military action against Pakistan.  Unbelievable.

If you are saying Democrats have it wrong because their solution to the problem in Iraq is to leave I think you have it wrong.

I've been on board with that solution for the last year and a half. A lot of Americans, when they wager the rewards of staying in Iraq vs what it is costing us and will cost us if we leave...

Rewards
-Slow steady progress towards a more unified state, that will fall apart when we leave if we leave, ever
-Second Democracy in Middle East
-More stable fuel markets worldwide

Costs
-$400+ Billion thus far
-3,500 dead Americans 25,000 wounded Americans, many with serious, critical even, debilitating life long injuries,
-No sure date we can ever leave
-No economic benefit to remaining in the country
-No incentive for Iraqis to fix their own problems, AQ, sunnies, Shiites, Kurds, local militias vs federal army, corrupt police officers, corrupt government officials.

Our battle with Islamic extremism does not live or die in Iraq, it is not over when Iraq is done, it sure won't be the only place we ever have to go so why are we putting all the chips in this battle? We are racking up debt, wasting our resources fighting this war and for what progress?

Daily car bombs killing scores, dozens hundreds, a society of refugees sick of war, too poor and un-trusting of their leadership or us to fix the problems. Sure there is progress but it can be accelerated if and when we leave, burdening the Iraqis with their responsibilities and not leaving that to the Americans, soldiers fighting political battles on the streets of the capitol.

Certainly keeping people free in Iraq and their elected government in power doesn't benefit us any, we aren't seeing record low fuel prices like after the Gulf War, we aren't seeing a growing peace movement in the middleeast because we have setup shop on the ground "over there".
Since we are not denying terrorists a haven to perform operations in Iraq anymore then we are stopping the sun from shining there, it's time to leave and let the Iraqis live of die by their own values. If they choose to give in to the terrorists fine, they will have to suffer the consequences, if they choose to stand up and fight for themselves, then AQ will eventually be defeated.

Yeah they may not have a great plan, but there's cost both a hell of a lot less in money and lives of our soldiers, it also exits us from this nightmare that a lack of planning got us into in the first place. Lets leave today, and give Iraqi's a head start on their future, a future of their choosing not ours.

I have a simple solution that would end the terrorist problem forever, everywhere, We have a stockpile of close to 2000 almost obsolete nukes, I say we use them, start with pakistan and work our way west, just do all the Muslim countries except for Iraq.

at least gene didn't say, that the vast majority of americans want this or that, this time.

That's because he hasn't had a chances yet. Besides he seems to stick to his own articles most of the time. He barely every wonders off onto other articles, he knows he'll get mulled.

if you were to take time to skim over the recent history of afghanistan, you might possibly begin to realize why and how it became the perfect haven for bin laden.

here's a clue: after a decade of utilizing their homeland as our proxy in a brutal war against the ussr, afghanistan--already one of the world's most impoverished nations--had become a virtual wasteland with a terminally damaged infrastructure.

here's another: instead of stepping up to rebuild the place immediately afterward (or even do much in the way of helping its citizens remove the millions of mines waiting to blow off their legs and arms) as a thank-you for all the blood they shed to bring down the soviet union (if you believe reagan really scared gorbachev by ordering him to tear down the berlin wall, you can stop reading right here), we crawled from the wreckage and went on home.

bin laden stayed there, spent money and built things like hospitals in addition to terrorist training camps. as the country spiraled into even greater chaos, the taliban stepped in and began killing bandits. sure they were brutal religious fanatics, but they did establish order of a sort.

a month after 911, we invaded afghanistan, drove out the taliban and allowed bin laden to escape into the nw tribal regions of pakistan. we could have--and should have--cleansed afghanistan of the taliban then. we could have--and should have--made a really significant effort to rebuild afghanistan, to heal the wounds it suffered while acting as our agent. we had strong support and a true coalition force.** after things calmed down a bit, the afghanis brought themselves together to form their first real government in decades.

do you remember all of bush's bluster about not resting til bin laden was captured? you think he ain't resting peacefully most nights? until a couple weeks ago, i'm willing to bet oj spent more time tracking down whatshername's killer.

at the point where we could have helped turn afghanistan into a real ally--unlike pakistan- bush, cheney, rumsfeld and their associates did what far too many people do when they believe themselves to have absolute authority. moving all but 20,000 troops out of afghanistan was & remains an act of criminal stupidity.

now either bush is a puppet who's parroting something someone else told him to say about the danger of failed states--or he's so stupid he forgot his own admonition.

here's a third possibility: he really don't give a fuck and never has because he's never had to take any responsibility for anything in his entire life..

personally, i'm favoring the last of those.

and when the revitalized al quaeda attacks again, yall can try to blame it on whomever you want. fact is, we've had nearly 6 years to conduct a real war on al quaeda and to capture bin laden. clocks been tickin the whole time while bush and his buddies played war president.

you have a lotta fuckin nerve calling american citizens ignorant cowards because they're finally beginning to speak out against bush's disastrous expedition in iraq.

you remind me of a passerby happening upon an accident who--lacking formal training in any of the sciences which might qualify one to deduce from the scene some likely cause for the wreck, not to mention being totally uninteresed in reports from those who happened to actually witness the event--looks things over for a few moments before loudly ensuring everyone within earshot is forced to conclude he's an ignoramus of the first degree.

**i'm sure you've never stopped to consider this but there is no such thing as a coalition of the unwilling. coalition of the willing is a perfect example of the only thing at which the bush machine is truly successful: coining cynical bullshit doublespeak.

The Democrats have changed their position of opposition to the war in Iraq from one of being a rush to war, then an unjust and wrong war to be fighting, now it's end the war that cannot be won.

Clearly at this stage, there isn't a military solution to the situation or it would have been reached already? Five years of Iraq under occupation has accomplished a lot of the goals we were sold on in order to get us in there,

Get Saddam,
Get the WMD,
Setup a democracy

Step 4 is leaving. For the people who say or use the argument, stay until the job is done, A. Whats the job we are trying to do? B. What if that job requires us to make Iraq the 51st state, where we never leave?

If the goal is to get Iraq on their feet, they are on their feet, they have a government, a military, a police force, they have those things what they need now is something we can't give them, which is a belief in freedom over fear. They can't achieve that without looking to death of the path of terrorism straight in the eye, experiencing it themselves and choosing to fight it, rather then buy it off and make it someone else's' burden.

I'm sorry you feel like us leaving is means the instant loss of freedom and total collapse of Iraqi society. It surely does not, but our continued presence makes their country a target for anyone who wants to import terror, and fight agains the USA for whatever reason, on a battlefield of chaos. You can't argue with me, because its fact, the death of tens of thousands of civilians since we have been there, has occurred. Not on our hands but because of our choice to invade and occupy rather then invade, accomplish a mission, and leave.

You also can't argue that at any point in this entire operation that this military was prepared to do this job at all, because the military commanders have admitted to congress it is so.

Just because you start a job, take on a task, doesn't mean you finish it if finishing it is beyond your capability. Which clearly, assuring long term peace and stability in Iraq, is not.

Oops, double post. I guess I was much more passionate about this than I thought.

Reply By: Dan Greene

I see your point, but when we leave (and we will) we need to be in a position where Iraq is responsible if it fails to survive on its own. We need to make sure we keep as little of the blame as possible, since we will never be free of blame if Iraq fails to stay afloat. Yes we got Saddam, no we never really found anything significant enough of WMD (though I will always say we are not perfect, we make mistakes too) and we helped create a new Gov't, but as long as we are not sure they are ready to go on their own we have to, as a responsibility for bringing more chaos to chaos, help them as much as we can.

I think they are ready, I think it's time for them to take it upon themselves to start cleaning out the streets and bringing some kind of order to this chaos, with us as support. Once we see they can handle it, we can focus more on Al-qaeda in Pakistan. We need to convince the Pakistani Gov't to allow us to be more directly involved at the border instead of keeping us on the Afghan sideline. I would rather we find a way to enter with permission rather than ignore their request to stay out. 1 invasion against the wishes of others is enough for 1 war. We need not to add more wood to the fire.

they are starting to fight it. haven't you been watching the news.

There hasn't been anymore point to remaining in Iraq as an occupier this summer then there was last year or the year before.

The generals and civilian leadership are continuing to say the same things. From the generals it's, we need more time to develop the indigenous forces things are working in Iraq, progress is being made. From the civilians, we need to give the generals all the time they need, we need to support them until the job it done.(Even though we have been retroactive not proactive on that since pre-invasion) The civilian leadership is also pretty clear in communicating that if we leave before the Iraqi's are fully ready, they have no chance at all in surviving. Considering how right the civilian leadership has been about the decisions and reasons to go to war, the fact that there is no was no "meaningful" WMD in Iraq, how mismanaged the war has been since the beginning, Haliburton, Abu ghraib, the 18 month commitments overseas, the overextension of our military forces to the breaking point, the fact that we are mortgaging the financial future of our own country to support Iraq, I'd have to say the Republican civilian leadership has lost all credibility on knowing which way is North in this situation. They are both fully dedicated to the proposition that leaving, ever, will make Iraq a victory for the terrorists.

That is what you get when you have no timetable for a liberating/occupying nation remaining in country when a local police force and army does not have the full responsibility of ensuring the safety of the local populace because it's our responsibility.

Let's clear something up about terrorism. You cannot "win" where they give up. Anybody willing to die and kill others rather the surrender or live in peace, cannot be deterred. Even if Iraq was magically turned into as fucking peaceful as Oregon or Nevada, TERRORISTS will both not be impressed or DETERRED. The only way to stop them is to kill them. Well playing referee in the middle of a civil war where most of the players are not terrorists but foreign fighters, agents working for governments in the area trying to create influence for the exact situation which is inevitable, Our withdrawal, is not the way to stay responsive and proactive against terrorist organizations.

Further, car bombs exploding, killing dozens or hundreds daily is not the kind of "success" that equates to "being greeted with open arms" What more do we need to accomplish in Iraq to leave? Do we need to get Sunni and Shiite to be in love with each other and inter-marry? Is that the condition for success? Do we need to help them plant flower gardens all over Baghdad and hang posters of "Make love not war" over the bullet holed walls of buildings across their nation.

No. Iraq is their nation, if they want to keep it united, and eliminate an insurgency then THEY have to take the responsibility for that. If their leaders can't come to agreement on how to make a government work with these groups, the people have to elect new leaders who can make it work, or overthrow the government.

People say, if you leave too early, we'll just end up going back. I say that's bullshit, We aren't in Vietnam, we sure didn't win that war, lots of people died because we left, but lots died because we stayed so long without a mission, except contain communism. We spent a good decade there and with no better results then we are accomplishing in Iraq. According the President Bush on the carrier in the Gulf the "Mission (was) Accomplished" In Korea we still are garrisoned but the North Koreans are finally coming around to the idea of a peace treaty instead of a armistice.

An insurgency in Iraq is going to go on for years and years with or without our presence. There is no guarantee that if we stay another 5 or 10 years it will fix the situation. Islamic terrorism and terrorism in general isn't going to just vanish off the face of the Earth because we will it to or try to kill every one of the mother fuckers out there who would do us harm. Just not feasible to get em all.

As for keeping as little blame. How do you shirk off the Abu ghraib prison scandal, how do you wipe the death of tens of thousands of civilians caught in the crossfire off of the colors of the Flag?

I don't think you realize that even with 150,000 troops we cannot force another nation to accept democracy, or peace under freedom, especially if the people are unwilling to change their ways. I'll use the Star Wars example, of the galactic empire vs the rebel alliance. Even with millions of storm troopers, if there are rebels, and they have the support of the people because of the things our country does as an occupier, regardless if it is in the best interest of Iraq, the country can still fall apart.

The reason we didn't find any WMD in Iraq is because there wasn't any. There was no active weapons depot, no chemical weapons development in the semi trailers, no nuclear weapons program. There were Iraqi's who destroyed large amounts of weapons left over from the Iran-Iraq war, and also lost some of the weapons and records. Iraq was not Nazi Germany. People did things in Iraq not because they had a fanatical loyalty to the state, but because Saddam was an evil sun of a bitch that they feared and they lied or covered for each other in order to make him feel powerful.

Certainly there is little need to go gung ho in Pakistan unless we have hard solid intel that that is where the enemy is. Not "sexed up" phony bologna bs Intel and politically motivated invasions with no post war planning sufficient enough to even have an exit strategy if shit should go bad.

How could things be worse in Iraq right now? In Baghdad, we have troops on deployments that last over a year, car bombs killing hundreds daily, and no end in sight, also no exit strategy. I think the only way things could be worse is if they did have WMD and detonated it.

I don't see why you seem to think that leaving is not an acceptable solution. In my opinion, honest and serious, it is the only acceptable solution. The first step to that is assigning a timetable so everybody knows that on this day, America stops taking responsibility for the Iraqi's.

I will point a finger that the Republicans, specifically the Bush administration has consistently forbade congress to get the ball rolling on this necessity. The American people in large part support a withdrawal and why not?

I have to agree with DrGuy here Dan Greene. My title clear expresses exactly what you just did. My request was simple, give me a decent solution. Something, anything. I'll give you an example of what I mean. Bush gave a solution to the SS problem, personal retirement accounts . Sure not a plan most liked and did not get too far thru Congress and the Senate, but a plan none the less. What other plans have been offered, Bush clearly stated he would consider any idea, I have yet to see any other kind of solution out there. All I see is a lot of criticism towards the only idea on the table. Bush is not the only one with the power to suggest and create a bill to fix the SS problem. Where are all those ideas the previous Presidential candidates who ran against Bush said they had while campaigning?

This is what I mean, even if it's not a solution everyone likes at least it shows they are trying. But where are these idea?



Here you give up before you even try and then you claim what needs to be done but give no plan as to how. How do we kill them? We chase them? We bomb the countries they are hiding in? We level any building they take refuge, even if it's a school or a hospital? Even if it's not in Iraq, how do we take down, or kill as you propose, a group of people who hide in schools and hospitals putting the live of innocent people, especially children, in danger? Do we simply ignore them and accept defeat?

We need, as a country, to make a choice. We need to accept or deny that we are in danger of a group of people determined to do us harm, be it physically, financially or mentally. Once we chose acceptance or denial we then chose what next action to take.

If we accept the danger, do we a) wait for them to attack us, check every person, with no regards to invading the personal space, who enters the country, or do we go after them by either asking the countries they are hiding in to help or force them to help.

If we deny we are in danger and decide to go one with normal life. How do we handle a situation if they did attack while we were distracted, ignoring them?

Questions, questions, questions. I'm often pointed as being ignorant to a lot of things, but I wonder how often people as themselves these questions and if they have a legit and logical answer for them. I believe I do.

We can't just ignore the inevitable...we can't keep thinking there is no war because there is and we just need to come together as a country. Bin Laden should be gone after, the war should be continued until everything is settled...