After Sadaam was removed from power, two options existed for the Iraqi people. They could have accepted his removal, came togeter, institue a new government, and move forward peacfully. We would have "redeployed". Or, they could respond the way they have. I understand that most Iraqi people are good, honest, hard working people who want the same for their families as I want for mine, but the other element has been the cause of the violence and the current state of affairs. We need to do our job to get the mess under control, hence more troops.



I could give a long list of terrorists attacks against Americans, and acts and statements made by Sadaam. But I don't think it would help. Somehow I think many believe it was all our fault anyway.

I am close friends with a lady who lived in Isreal when Sadaam was lobbing missles into Isreal, her mother still lives in Isreal. That was and is a big threat to someone I care about. That is not flimsy rhetoric to me.

Do you know why it would help? Those terrorists that attacked the US had nothing to do with Saddam, and Saddam made statements about several countries without ever attacking them.
OH, you're Israeli. Yes, if you live in Israel, Saddam was a threat to you 15 years ago.

Of course it's not 1991, and you don't live in Israel. Oops.

Bush attempted to make it clear that we were not attacking the Iraqi people. We attack Sadaam and his military to remove him from power. We are at fault for making the country of Iraq the global front in the war on terrorist, but the terrorist didn't have to respond the way they have.

If you slap a bear in the face, the bear has a choice: go back to sleep, or rip your arms off and eat your head.

The thing is, we have been bombing Iraqi civilians for a long time, and Clinton was absolutely wrong to do it, and Bush was absolutely wrong to do it. The embargos killed millions (?) of Iraqis that had nothing to do with Saddam's policies. As I've said time and again: Saddam was no threat to the US coming up to and as the US invaded in 2003. There was no real reason to invade them. It would have been much better to allow Iraq to have a civil war that removed Saddam from power, while carefully monitoring the situation (and providing the resistence secretly with intel on Saddam). We would have experienced 0 casualties, we could have concentrated our military and intelligence services on actually fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where I have no doubt we would have already found Osama and been able to put him on trial. Instead of a world that resents us for invading a country that was no threat to us, the world would cheer as a major battle against radical militants was won.

How many people was Sadaam responsible for killing?

No, I am not.

O.k. so you don't think sadaam was a threat. And he was made powerless. And he had no plans to harm anyone. And he only talked about harming others but would never act on his threats. Is that your position?

True.

I think that's unfair... "Choosing" between forming a peaceful government and rebellion isn't a simple choice, like picking what you're going to wear for the day. Obviously, tons a factors exist that affect the reaction of the Iraqi people, and the designers of this invasion seriously misjudged it. It's not like the decision was made on a whim, or by a flip of a coin.

Yes, I believe the people behind the insurgency are misguided (i'm don't want to call them all "bad"....). But our invasion paved the road for them. The US can't completely wash its hands of that fact, and place blame soley on the Iraqi people.

Good. a green light for analogies.

If you are the leader of a pack and you let a member of your pack get away with defiant behavior (the way Sadaam was acting against UN resolution after UN resolution) the order of the pack will eventually be destroyed. We had an obligation to act against Sadaam, it is a responsibility the comes with being the lead nation in the world.


You sound like the people on my local school board. People know right from wrong. They either choose to do what is right or they don't. Killing women, children, elderly, etc, etc is a strategic choice they made and is wrong. They target non-military personnel to break the will of the people.

And if you read what I wrote, I agree we need to clean the mess up. We need to send in more troops, and have a show of strength and power. We need to give the good people in Iraq an opportunity to succeed.

The US isn't the UN. The US tried to get the UN to take more substantial action, and the UN said it was not warranted, yet. The US has no jurisdiction over Iraq unless they attack us or pose some realistic threat to us.

The US is the top dog. We can accept that responsibility or pass the responsibility on to another country. I want to keep our top dog status, don't you?

And before I get all the comments about being an arrogant American, I already know it. And I don't care who doesn't like it, just don't make threats against me and mine. SEMPER FI:thumbsup:

The woman I live with is Israeli. I just read this to her and she was amazed at the naivete and ignorance (her words) of some Americans.

Iraq hasnt been a serious threat to Israel since they bombed the Iraqi nuclear facilities in the early 80s. The scud missles of the first gulf war were hardly considered a threat. Saddam's payment of money to suicide bombers was also tragic, but not a serious security threat to Israel. The Israelis have recognized for years that Saddam had neither the capacity nor the ideological interest to instigate anything beyond those limited symbolic actions because he knew it would result in a deadly reprisal.

The real threat to Israel is the instability in Iraq and the growing influence of Iran, all brought about by our invasion of Iraq.

Top Dog? At what?
Another military officer who thinks it's okay to kill anyone as long as you're ordered top do it, eh?

"THE" Top Dog, not "A" top dog.

No. Take another guess.

I don't know if you read her my position in context or just choose to pick that quote out of the blue. If she has an opinion encourage her to share them. I know there are many Israeli people against our military action in Iraq, my Isrraeli friend is against our military action in Iraq also.

O.k. you didn't think Sadaam was a threat. I did. What's next.

You say the missles fired at Isreal were not considered a threat. I did, on two levels. The first is obvious. The second had to do with his unsuccesful attempt to get Ireal involved in the war offensively. If he had suceeded what do you and your friend think would have happened? Didn't that plan put Isreal at risk? What makes you and your friend think his goals changed? What was he doing with the billions he was getting through the Oil for Food scandal?
I stand by my position - Sadaam needed to be removed from power, and it should have happend during the first Gulf War.

I say this for the last time. Iraq is in chaos. We are in-part to blame. We need to fix it. Sending in additional troops with a show of force is needed to get the situation under control. When the situation is under control, it will be up to the Iraqi people to determine their futures.

On a side note. I am amazed by the number of people who would ignore direct verbal threats. I guess I was raised on the "wrong side of the tracks", when people make direct verbal threats, I always assume they intend to act on the threat.

ace: much of what you are saying relies on a TON of assumptions, most of which square with standard-issue neoconservative arguments about the war in iraq. the premise is, as you have stated, that the united states is "top dog"--by which i assume you mean that the us is the dominant military power in the world on paper at least. in technological terms, maybe, insofar as what counts is expensive shiny deadly toys. from this premise follows thatthe americans need to figure out a way to act on the world, only being to a certain extent in the world as a function of having more shiny expensive deadly toys than anyone else. from this problem follows a rationale for the invasion of iraq: it is about the first gulf war and the neocon interpretation of that war (lunatic though it is) which assumes that the otherwise totally victorious americans were hamstrung by the evil un and so could not invade iraq in 1991 and "finish the job"---so the invasion this time has nothing to do with any of the absurd justifications floated by the bush people: it was supposed to be a huge fuck you to the international community and the moment across which the united states would assume its predestined role in the world as military hegemon.

except that the bush people screwed it up.
the gambled and they lost.
all i see in your arguments about the war up to this point is an inability to get your head around this basic reality.
then i see a refusal to even consider that a central problem with iraq may follow from this hyper-nationalist go-it-more-or-less alone attitude particular to the neocons. you treat that logic as a straightjacket and seem to think that there is no way to alter it: which means that you, like your more prominent neocon bretheren, have turned a massive defeat into a parameter for thinking, and you positions, like those of the "bush plan" follow in a straight line from that.
it seems to me that this entire line of argument is at best circular, and at worst simply nuts.
the problem--well there are a lot of them, but i have to go so i'll outline one--is that the americans are a faction within the iraqi civil war and, as others have said above, are the CAUSE of the institutional breakdown that has (arguably) generated that civil war (this from the un assessment of the situation in yesterday's ny times--not sure if i agree with it, but it is convenient)....if anything about that is true, then the only rational way out of this mess is for the americans to begin constructing frameworks internationally that would enable them to begin rolling themselves out of iraq. because there is no way--no bloody way--that the americans can do anything constructive in iraq within the present logic of the conflict. these frameworks--maybe something on the order of another congress of vienna--will not happen overnight, and so would have to operate as a strategic element. there is no such strategy in the bush plan. so the troop "surge" seems absurd: a walk down the primrose path that the americans walked down in vietnam, escalation as a device to engender de-escalation blah blah blah: all because the neocon worldview is constructed to the exclusion of any such internationalization of this debacle, and that (i think at least) because to entertain such an option would be to concede defeat on their own terms. and that it seems they cannot do. and it seems that you cannot do it either.

Lying through his teeth, ace....and just 3 weeks before this was finally released:

Here is a link to Bush's speach in October 2002. Feel free to pick pieces of it to support your positions, I can do the same. Regardless, at that time we did not have the benifit of hindsite. If you guys think our long-term situation would be better with Sadaam a live, re-building his military, etc., I can accept it because its no longer an issue since he is dead.

If you objectively read what Bush said, and still you belive he lied, that's o.k. too because I know he did not.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

For those of you who are humanitarian, and want to understand why we need to get the situation in Iraq under control, not leave but send in more support here is a link to the UN.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...1&Cr=iraq&Cr1=

I agree, which is why any further discussion is an exercise in futility.

One last reaction to this:
Here is the response of Gen Abizaid to a similar comment by Sen. McCain several weeks ago:

ABIZAID: Senator McCain, I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.

Now I am done.

What is the point of saying further discussion is an excercise in futility? If you believed that why read what I write, why waste time responding? There have been several occations were you have written comments like this that strike me as very odd. I am going to assume when your argument is weak, that is when you revert to such tactics. I also note that you continually refuse to respond to simple direct questions. I am going to assume when you don't respond, that your response won't support your previous argument.

Until next time.

:icare:

LOL....you do have a unique view of the world and the responses to those in the smaller TFP community with whom you disagree. Maybe one day, when you look at your questions objectively in the broader context of the discussion, you will understand why people choose not to respond. As Roach noted, it just goes round and round with you.

This is definetely a vent...you have the ability to bring that out in people :)

I had a boss once who said i was like a pit bull. I said thanks. She said it wasn't a compliment. Through self analysis, I have come to realize it is both a blessing and a curse. Just as, perhaps, getting in the last word is with you. Can you do it? :D

And what does top dog mean? Our military is obviously not the best, as we've not actually won a war since WWII, our econemy isn't really the best anymore, our schools are crap, our health is crap. We're not really top dog in anything except for cowboy diplomacy.

Bush is a traitor for having mislead congress into a war of vengence and agression, and those that follow him can't really say much since we've uncovered the reality that there were no WMDs, there were no links to the al Qaeda, and Bush took steps to hand-pick intel to support his invasion.

If you have to ask, I probably can't explain it in a way that you will understand. Being "The top dog" doesn't mean you have to be the best at any one thing or anything. It means through perception, reality, whatever, others look to you to set the agenda. Your presence helps to maintain order and stability. When your position is challenged others watch carefully how you respond, your response sets the tone. Respond in the wrong way and everything falls into chaos. Respond in the correct way calm and order are preserved. If you let low ranking members get away with defiant behaviors you risk higher ranking members to directly challenge your position.

Sadaam, was a low ranking member getting away with defiant behavior. It needed to end. At risk were not only threats from him, but the entire ME going into chaos and possibly the rest of the world. Iran, China, North Korea all have the potential to be bigger problems than Iraq. Currently all eyes are on how we (The Top Dog) handles the situation.

I know in advance what some of you will say. And I say we don't live in a Disney Land like world. Power struggles are governed by animalistic behaviors, and before comment take a detailed look at historical transitions of power and read "The Art of War". Historically cultures who fail in the art of war get enslaved (serve others) or die. Perhaps 1000 years from now we will evolve and we can all be happy, but that day ain't today.

I think "top dog" also infers that you seem to, at least on the surface, know what the hell you're doing. And that you don't lead your group into chaos. And that you have the confidence of those you are leading. We all know what happens to the "top dog" when he starts limping around, don't we? Guess what...GWB made us gimpy. Ya.

Yes. The American public has lost (or has never had) confidence in GWB. the importance of this has been commented on, and the response is usually about free speech and "don't call us unpatriotic", we support the troops, etc., when what we need is a unified voice. Taking political shots at GWB is hurting our cause not helping. Democrats gave GWB the authority to wage war, they gave him the funding, GWB was re-elected, GWB has offered a change in strategy. Now we need agreement on a plan. Democrats need to either support GWB's plan or tell us the following:

What is your plan?
What are we going to do if we withdraw and the civil war turns into ethnic cleansing?
What if Iran, Syria, Turkey got involved in the civil war?
What if Iraq turns into a haven for terrorist, what are we going to do?

You are correct GWB is in a weakend state. That as a given our enemy is going to be more aggressive.

So it's a state of mind more than actual power. Gotcha. If that's the case, then being top dog is a temendous responsibility. I don't think our government is up to it. Frankly, I don't think China or the EU are up to it either. We'd probably be better off with a checks and balances type of arrangement with the other powers. Had that been the case in 2003, I think we can all agree that Asia and Europe would have kept the US out of Iraq.

If we are top dog, why did over half the planet protest the US invasion of Iraq? Shouldn't they have fallen into line?
The US had and has no legal authority over Iraq. Had we been in danger, I would ahve supported some military action. All we've proven now is that if we don't like you, you're f**ked. That's more like a bully than a top dog.
AH! That's the problem. If we are going to lead, then we had better figure out what example we want to make. Power struggles between people or groups without morals are animalistic. We are not animals, and when we behave like animals, we give permission for our enemies to behave like animals.

I've read the Art of War several times.

"No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general should fight a battle simply out of pique."

"If victory is long in coming, then men’s weapons will grow dull and their ardour will be damped."

"Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain."

"Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardour damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue."

"Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays. While speed may sometimes be injudicious, tardiness can never be anything but foolish."

If you were familiar with my posts on this thread, you would know that I don't support the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. At least not in the very near future.

I don't have to "have a plan." I'm supposed to be under the impression that my leader does. It's not my fault that he screwed up. I didn't vote for him. I'm supposed to put my faith blindly in an administration that put us in this mess in the first place and that continues to ignore the advice of those who would be able to contribute to a workable plan? Bullshit! No, my faith lies squarely with the people, conservative or liberal, who endorse multi-lateral solutions which will effectively result in us, the top dog, realizing that there is no I in the word team. :lol:

Meaning that if the world keeps turning the way it is, there will no longer be need for one nation-state to be "top dog." And I think that's a good thing ultimately.

I agree. Example: Iraq.

Oh no! Oh my god! Someone dared to mouth off about the US! Yeah that's TOTALLY a reason to invade his country and get him killed.

No, it didn't. He wasn't hurting us.

I can threaten to turn you into a newt, but if I lack the ability it really doesn't matter. Saddam could rattle his sabre all he wanted, it wouldn't give him the capability to attack us. Hell Kuwait was on the outer edge of his missile range, and when he did fire at them he missed most of the time. Saddam never had the capacity to attack us militarilly. If you wanna start attacking people because they pose a threat to us, then why didn't we invade N. Korea, which has nukes, the capability of hitting us, and has threatened to do so?


It's going into chaos now. Our actions didn't help much, did they.

Yeah, and all those eyes are wondering WTF our problem is. If Iran, China, and NK have the potential to be bigger problems than Iraq, why didn't we deal with them? That's like spending all your energy swatting the mosquito while ignoring the grizzly bear charging you.

And historically governments that waste time, energy, money, and soldiers in conflicts they have no business being in collapse and disappear. See: Napoleon, Hitler, the USSR. . .

Gee Ace, I thought we were the top dog - the guy everyone else looks to. Why don't we start this evolution?

Our cause is immoral, illegal, and filled with war crimes. Our cause SHOULD be to keep us safe, not to attack countries because it sounds like fun. GWB wants our cause to be the latter, and quite frankly I am not interested in helping that cause.

They gave him the authority to wage war to defend our country from danger. We were not in danger from Iraq, he misused that authority. Quit trying to pin this on the democrats. The fault for this mess lies squarely with the white house.

Maybe. when the CEO of the voting machine company promises to rig the election in favor of Bush, I have trouble believing he was legitimately elected.

No, he hasn't. He's offered to throw more troops into the fray, but also to invade Iran. That's not changing the strategy, it's just moving it to another country.

Leave. Now.

It's already doing that, it's already going to do that, there's nothing we can do about it.

They will, whether we're there or not. Hopefully 100 years from now this, combined with Vietnam, will be a lesson that will teach America to mind its own damn business and to keep its military away from where it doesn't belong. You'll excuse me if I don't have much faith that this lesson will actually stick.

it already is. We're the ones who made it that way. Staying there isn't going to stop that. Staying there is only going to make the Arab world even more pissed off at us.


Your arguments make no sense. The logical leaps required to comprehend them are completely invalid. If we want to stop the terrorists, logically we'd go after the terrorists. But we pulled out of Afghanistan, and Bush himself said he wasn't real worried about catching bin Laden. If you can explain to me, logically, how we can stop terrorism by letting the real terrorists go, I'll listen.

I think you'd have a better chance convincing me that rain is dry.

Like I said if you have to ask... Somtimes its actual power, sometimes its not. A 75 pound girl can be the Top Dog to a 1300 pound horse.

I agree. We are close to that, but not there yet.

Perhaps.

Not always a popularity contest.

The Top Dog doesn't need legal authority.

I can't think of the comedians name but he did a thing on dicks, assholes and pussies. I am sure you can see the punchline. I will look for a link to the joke. But you are correct in theory.

GWB has been pretty clear about what he wants. That is different from disagreeing with what he wants. The problem in America is that we elected GWB twice, but then we say he is an idiot, lier, etc.

Have you ever worked in a large corporation? People in $1200 suits can be brutal without drawing blood.

Speak for yourself. Woof Wooof.

Somtimes "men" have to do the things that "women and children" are better off not knowing about. "men", "women" and "children" used in a symbolic way not literal.

I agree.

These are the reasons we need to aggressivly put an end to this mess, and stop playing around.

Doesn't support your view.

I was making the point about the Democrats in Congress.

We will most likely never agree on why we got into this mess, but we agree that we are in a mess. Now we need to get out of it. On one hand we have GWB continuing to try to lead, on the other we have presidential hopefuls taking pot-shots. I am interested in the Democratic answers to the 4 questions I listed. I might agree with their plan.

Inspite of my tone this is an issue I have struggled with and why I keep putting my thoughts in writing.

When you have been in positions of authority, how have you handled defiant behavior? What did you do when all else failed, did you take the final action within your authority?

I deal in reality. If you threaten to kill me, I don't care about your ability to actually kill me, I won't ignore it - I won't forget it.

What was he doing with the billions being stolen from the oil for food program?


One, two or all of them.

I argued that Iraq is a mess and we are partially to blame and therfore have some responsibility to fix the mess. That makes no sense to you? If it doesn't, well we just don't speak the same language (symbolically).

As far as "top dog" goes........:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: we aren't and may never be again.

"Top dogs" lead by example and don't have to attack just to attack (as we did in Iraq).

"Top dogs" set standards and keep them...... look at our country the only standard we have is getting so far in debt our great grandchildren will be working to pay it off.

"Top dogs" don't have to stand around telling everyone how they are "top dog" everyone else already knows.

"Top dogs" help the weak, knowing that someday when they get strong they'll make great allies. We exploit the weak, take their resources, keep in power dictatorial, power hungry, hated leaders (Shah of Iran, Marcos, even Saddam, etc) and when the people revolt in those countries as they have.... we don't understand why they hate us so much.

But most of all "Top dogs" don't allow themselves to get soft in the middle and not advance..... we allowed other countries to pass us, economically, educationally, mentally, and so on. The ONLY 2 things this country has that keep people from treating us like a second rate country are the nuclear missiles and our consumption that is putting us farther and farther into debt.

If a "Top Dog" leads only by fear...... he is destined to not only be killed but slaughtered and used as an example.

Ace, you keep wanting to be Top Dog but all you want to do is lead by fear and might...... that only brings forth hatred and spawns violence, it's never a long run at the top when you lead by fear.

When you lead by example, when you lead and strive to keep leading but help the weak to advance..... you stay leader a hell of a lot longer and you inspire everyone else to be the positive you are.

Positive energy begets positive results........ negative energy begets negative results both build exponentially and both are equally as powerful.... positive energy flows and spreads through positive results and creates beauty..... negative energy condenses, spreads through fear, hatred and poor leadership, destroys anything of beuaty and replaces it with ugliness.

If we are "Top Dog" then the leaders of our country set the world tone..... gee, corruption, power hungry, rich men, who are trying to squeeze everything they can get out of the rind, so that when the rest of the country spoils they have their safety nets.

Yep...... we're in good hands.

Edit: Upon re-reading this there are 2 things so I am changing the above statement; to this:

Seriously? So you think the US is free to do what it wants, when it wants? If that's the case, I'm afraid you've misplaced your faith in an imperfect government that can and does do wrong. Why would you give a free pass to anyone in power? I just don't get it.
Team America: World Police. The movie where the puppets got it on.
GWB has never been clear about anything because he lacks to ability to speak like a normal human being. I *think* what he has said is that he wants to stop terrorism, so he attacked Iraq. We all know those were two sepereate wars. The real problem is that Bush hasn't actually won an election, and no one has had the balls to call him out on it in a realistic way. He is obviously an idiot, he mislead congress (misleading people is a type of deception, a.k.a. lying), and he has a lot in the "etc." department, including aspiring emperor.
Yes. I'm Executive Vice President of a medium sized corporation, and all my power comes from the ability to treat the workers like human beings instead of machines or work horses. I'll admit that I can be very tenacious when it comes to looking out for those who depend on me, but to cross the line and become like a child or an animal, things like posturing, distrusting others, selfishness, etc. have no place in the workplace and no place on the battlefield.
You calling me a woman? I'll beat your ass! JK

If everyone in the world thought to themselves "would my mother/father/pastor/brother/sister/etc. approve of this?" before they made their decisions, I doubt there would be war. There is a reason that other people have opinions and feelings on matters; perspective. Sometimes we can be wrapped up so much in our own little world that we can lose sight of what's really important and we can lose ourselves. What keeps us rounded is our socieities perspective. In the end, the reason for a military is not for posturing or controling others, it is to defend the defenceless and to protect the common good as a last resort.
And that is to send 20,000 more troops? That doesn't even make up for AWOL, injured and deceased troops since the war started. We're just going back to 2003 all over again and it's going to continue until Bush leaves office. That, I can guerentee.

I have changed my position. You folks are correct. I think we should remove our troops from Iraq as soon as possible.
Bush is a lame duck. Congress should take the initiative and cut military funding if Bush refuses to follow the plan Congress recommends, hopfully a plan that will have virtually the full support of the American people, our European and Asian allies, and the support of nieboring countries to Iraq in the ME. After we remove our troops we should begin full diplomatic efforts to bring about lasting peace in the ME.

Thanks for helping me see the light.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you when you're 100% wrong does not mean they don't understand. Insulting someone's intelligence because they won't go along with something stupid isn't the brightest idea.

Imperialist bullshit that true patriotic Americans who understand the concept of liberty would never support.


No, he hasn't. First it was because the terrists were gonna get us. Then it was because Saddam had WMD. Then it was because Saddam was mean. Now we're back to the terrist thing, only we're not going after the terrist that actually got us.

He was not elected the first time. He was appointed by the supreme court. I'll resist the urge to comment about activist judges here. The second time we've already discussed as far as the questions surrounding it - something you choose to pretend doesn't exist because it doesn't fit your fantasy view of the world.

At any rate, even if he was legitimately elected both times, I never voted for him. And many of those who did are now realizing the mistake they made. Just because you say one thing 2 and 6 years ago doesn't mean you can't change your mind.

If the shoe fits. . .


And sometimes those "men" end up committing atrocities that they shouldn't be doing. This is why we have checks and balances. We let that system break down here, and look where it's gotten us.


GWB is the one that got us into this mess in the first place. I dunno about you but if someone drives my car into a brick wall, I'm not gonna let him keep driving.

By which you mean pointing out the insanity that has taken over the executive branch.

If one of my guys mouths off to me I damn sure won't punch him. Some of us are capable of handling our differences without getting thousands of people killed. Unfortunately, GWB is not.

1) negotiations have worked pretty well for me. 2) Bush did not explore all the other options. 3) comparing workplace personality conflicts with a madman trying to start world war 3 is stupid.

Then you don't deal in reality, you deal in some bizarre rambo-esque fantasy. You're trying to tell me that if your little kid gets mad and yells he's going to kill you, you're gonna blow his head off? It's dangerous bullshit attitudes like this that got us into this mess in the first place. It's time we as Americans stow the high-and-mighty crap and start trying to get along.

Building more palaces for himself. If he had so much money that he was pumping into his war machine then 1) why couldn't his Scuds hit the broadside of a barn, and 2) where the hell are all these WMD's that he was supposed to have been buying with all this money?

You're acting as though all messes can be fixed and everything can end up with us all living happily ever after. That works in fairy tales but this is the real world. Yes, we caused that mess. We are not partly to blame - we are completely and wholly to blame. But unfortunately some messes just can't be fixed, at least not by the imperialist bully that created them. This is one of those messes. We can't do any good in there. Why stay and make things worse?

ace, you've been snookered....taken to the cleaners, but you're better off than a lot of other people....too many of whom are dead, disfigured, or missing a limb because of you're "intellectual alignment" this flawed and incompetent little man, and his hubris and lack of curiosity.
You can't fall back on the excuse that he was elected twice....he received a million less votes than the man he ran against in 2000, and he was fortunate enough to be the son of a man who had himself stacked the SCOTUS with sympathetic partisans, and was VPOTUS under a man who did likewise......resulting in five "justices" willing to discard all legal precedent and their own oaths of office to rule him the "winner" of a questionable and bitterly contested election, in the state where his brother got to pick the election oversight offiicials.....

You're welcome for insulting the intelligence of most others who posted here, nearly all of whom never said remove our troops without taking other concurrent actions. :thumbsup:

One statement was that I changed my position.
Another statement was that you folks are correct.
A third is that I think we should remove our troops.
A fourth was that Bush is a lame duck (no one wrote that either).
A fifth - Congress should cut funding to force Bush to follow a congressional plan (no one said that either).
I also said I hope it was a plan we can support along with other nations.
Then I stated we should begin diplomatic efforts to solve the problem.

If the above insults your intelligence, you have a problem not me.

If I misinterpreted the above as a cynical response, you have my sincere apologies. Flip-flopping is not a bad thing if you are indeed sincere in your transformation. (contrary to what many Repubs may suggest). :)

But to fully see the light, at least from my perspective, you would see the value and necessity of "slogging" through serious and difficult diplomacy BEFORE we remove our troops so that we could at some reasonable time in the near future, BEGIN drawing down our troops and replacing them with a stabiliziation force negotiated with all the parties in Iraq AND the region.

But I'm also not naive enough to expect "lasting peace". My hope is a cessation of the daily death and displacement of thousands of innocent Iraqis and the destruction of their country.....something to build on for the longer term.

I just figured you were being sarcastic.

This is what I wrote in #137 responding to a point made by Mixed.

As we further discussed the Top Dog concept, I had to honestly conclude that Bush and his plan will be ineffective. He has been weakend to the point that he can no longer lead.

I have always had difficulty with having troops in Iraq in a rebuilding mission. My primary concern with Iraq was to remove Sadaam fro power. That has been done. If we don't have the will to supress the insurgency using the military, I think we should remove our troops. Diplomacy can occur after we are gone and our military is no longer at risk. The quotes from the Art of War provided by Will helped me realize retreat is our best option during this time of chaos. From the US point of view we need to have our debate and then act with the full support of the American people. We should not leave our military exposed during the debate.

I wish I had a dollar everytime I heard that. I simply write what I think. Writing helps me clarify my thoughts. When I use sarcasm, I point it out before submitting my post as to not offend anyone's intelligence ( See that was a sarcastic shot at DC).

I tend to forgive Will and dc for thinking you were being sarcastic - - after all I do believe you're the first person, myself included, who's ever changed their mind, and admitted it, in the politics forum ;)