Mark,
There is no doubt in my mind or the minds of most Americans that the members of al Qaeda are a bunch of heartless ba***ds that deserve to die. If the mission in Iraq was only to hunt them down I have no doubt that there would be a lot more support. Sadly that is not the case. Much of the violence in Iraq right now is between Sunnis and Shiites. My daughter who got back from Iraq in early February told me stories about how a Sunni wouldn't use the same bathroom a Shiite had used and vis versa. Her boyfriend told me stories about Sunnis and shiites exchanging mortar fire over an American base. Both would love to see us pull of our troops out tomorrow. I would be all for us leaving troops to hunt al Qaeda and to train the Iraqis, however most of our troops are in the middle of a civil war and need to be pulled out.

Casper,

That's very dated information and something the left liked to lean on as justification for redeployment. There is no civil war and never has been. There has been bloody battles between Sunni elements and Shiite elements, but those elements never were comprised of the numbers that would justify the definition of a civil war.

The recernt trend is more encouraging:

Iraqi government figures suggest that civilian casualties nationwide were down something like 36% in June, for the lowest total this year...By BASSEM MROUE, Associated Press Writer
Sun Jul 1, 6:40 PM ET

...however most of our troops are in the middle of a civil war and need to be pulled out. - casper

I have two nephews currently in Iraq and they don't want to come home. I would appreciate it if you would let them come home on their terms and not for your transparent agenda.

One thing I'll have to say for sure!

I'm really pleased to see all the Conservative folks supporting Michael Yon, Most of them, from what I could tell, were Christian folk! I only wish that some of them would come and help out the Blogs for Bush team here!

Jeremiah

"Iraqi government figures suggest that civilian casualties nationwide were down something like 36% in June, for the lowest total this year...By BASSEM MROUE, Associated Press Writer
Sun Jul 1, 6:40 PM ET"

Fine, sounds like we are winning. good time to bring the troops home.

"I have two nephews currently in Iraq and they don't want to come home. I would appreciate it if you would let them come home on their terms and not for your transparent agenda."

Great. Let them stay and hunt al Qaeda. Isn't that what I already said?

"Fine, sounds like we are winning. good time to bring the troops home."

You admit we are starting to get ahead, yet you think that would be a good time to leave? I can't even express how idiotic that is.

"I'm really pleased to see all the Conservative folks supporting Michael Yon, Most of them, from what I could tell, were Christian folk!"

I have a lot of respect for Michael Yon. He is doing a great job of reporting.

"I have a lot of respect for Michael Yon. He is doing a great job of reporting."

Then why don't you come around and support the WAR EFFORT, HUH?

Jeremiah

"Then why don't you come around and support the WAR EFFORT, HUH?"

Let's see, I have had two daughters, a nephew, a former son-in-law, my daughters current boyfriend and at least a dozen former students serve in Iraq. My wife and I have sent packages, e-mailed, or called all of them. Tell me how you support the war.

One poster wrote "We all need to recenter our souls on God, before it's too late."

And he's right on the money!!

Jeremiah

"Let's see, I have had two daughters, a nephew, a former son-in-law, my daughters current boyfriend and at least a dozen former students serve in Iraq. My wife and I have sent packages, e-mailed, or called all of them. Tell me how you support the war."

Then why pull out?

Why not continue to fight, and STOP such things as what such things has happened reported by Mr. Yon's, and deliver these people from Evil?

Jeremiah

Here's a little tidbit I found on Confederate Yankee.

"...the Japanese psychological warfare effort during World War II included radio broadcasts that could be picked up by American troops. Popular music was played, but the commentary (by one of several English speaking Japanese women) always hammered away on the same points;

1. Your President (Franklin D Roosevelt) is lying to you.
2. This war is illegal.
3. You cannot win the war.

The troops are perplexed and somewhat amused that their own media is now sending out this message."

Interesting, huh?

Then why pull out?

I didn't say that we need to pull everyone out. I have no problem with leaving troops to train the Iraqis or to hunt down al Qaeda.

Now tell me again how you are supporting our troops.
And BTW I pray for them every day.

Deleted - you tell me why, leftwing critic, it would be a good thing for us to leave, now.

7. Airhead spent time on Daily KOS again today and brought us all the left wing talking point du jour.

Airhead,

How many times now have you said the same thing, over and over and over again? You are a very obedient useful idiot.

And, every dollar spent there, every soldier killed there, and every piece of hardware destroyed there is capability diverted from our national security. - airhead

And yet, not one major domestic incident.

Better argument please.

"Now tell me again how you are supporting our troops."

Casper,

I Pray for our Troops, and I Praise and Thank them everyday for their Sacrifice, Their Courage and Their willingness to fight the enemy, in order to protect all of us back here at home, this land that we call HOME, The United States of America, the most Free and Prosperous Nation on earth!!
They sacrifice their time and talents everyday for DEMOCRATS, But do the DEMOCRATS care?? I don't think so, or they would'nt condemn Mr. President for doing such a magnificent job as our Commander in Chief, who takes an interest in the safety and livelihood of EVERY AMERICAN, and they would'nt be like Mr. John Kerry who has slandered our troops, by saying "If you don't go to school and get yourself an education, you wind up in Iraq!!
JOHN KERRY IS ONE SIMPLE PHRASE - HE'S AND IDIOTIC FOOL AND COWARD!!! Is what he is!

God bless you President George W. Bush, You're the Greatest! And God bless all our Fine young Men and Women in Uniform!!

Jeremiah

Casper,

You're barely answering it, but not really answering it...why would it be good to pull our troops out now? Even some of them...what improvement would there be if we pulled out...that's what you have to demonstrate; and if you can't, then you'd better get 100% on board with what we're doing.

And these are the scumbags that the democrats want us to surrender too. These are the scumbags who the democrat leadership and lib media has done everything it could to give aid, comfort and encouragement. I am so glad I dumped the dem party when I did. I hope those few extra house and senate seats were worth it. The dems are using them to get so much done, aren't they.

"And yet, not one major domestic incident."

True, there have been no successful terrorist incidents in the US in the last 5 years. But nor were there any on US soil in the five years before the 9/11 attacks, at a time when the United States was doing much less to protect itself.

Before the invasion of Iraq, we've often gone decades between domestic terrorist incidents. So you think because we have gone 5 years without an attack on US soil, that must have something to do with the US being in Iraq? Then what was keeping the terrorists from attacking US soil all those other years (and decades) we weren't in Iraq?

You're trying to put two things together - no attacks, and US in Iraq - that have no apparent relation.

You seem to think the terrorists are now too busy killing Americans and others in Iraq to devote the time, manpower, or energy necessary to pull off similar deeds in the US. But terrorists have managed to carry out attacks in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, the UK, and elsewhere in the past few years (and these countries had often been attacked by terrorists before 9/11 as well). So obviously, the terrorists do have time and energy for attacks, and aren't all in Iraq. It only takes a handful of them.

Terrorist events here in the US are extremely rare. That is NOT to say that we should not do everything we can to protect ourselves here - I bring up the point because it shows the fallacy of you attributing lack of attacks to our invasion of Iraq. In the past century, perhaps 3,500 Americans have been killed by terrorists, most of them on that day the terrorists got extremely lucky. In just one year, over 19,000 Americans die from accidental poisoning. In fact, you are far more likely to die from an earthquake, even if you don't live in California. You have far higher odds of getting killed in a hurricane. In fact, your chance of dying from a bee sting is much greater than being killed by terrorists.

For the past 6 years, the sky was blue and the sun rose in the east. So is that because we invaded Iraq?

Better argument please.

Mark -

"Deleted - you tell me why, leftwing critic, it would be a good thing for us to leave, now.

Mark, I did tell you precisely why I think we should leave Iraq now. You deleted it.

Go back and read the deleted comment - I laid out a careful case as to why we should leave Iraq, and why us staying there is counter to our national interests. Unfortunately, you have no counter to my reasoned arguments, so you delete the entire post. Rather cowardly.

Aarontime,

So, From what I gather, from your post is -

Since we've not been attacked since 9/11, that it is now officially ok to take the risk/chance on another?

Jeremiah

Aaron,

No, you didn't - and I did read it, twice, just to be sure. You just said what a bunch of idiots we are for being there. If you could prove conclusively that the dumbest mistake made in all human history was our going INTO Iraq, it wouldn't matter in the least. We're there, NOW, and al Qaeda is there and they are butchering Iraqis and the Iraqi army, improving daily, still isn't up to the task of taking care if things by itself...so, leftwing critic, you tell me what improvement we could expect to see in Iraq if we pulled out, now.

As long as we are there in force, performing offensive operations. We will be a crutch. Period.

You don't enable a cripple to walk by tying them to the wheelchair...

Mark -

"If you could prove conclusively that the dumbest mistake made in all human history was our going INTO Iraq, it wouldn't matter in the least. We're there, NOW, and al Qaeda is there and they are butchering Iraqis and the Iraqi army, improving daily, still isn't up to the task of taking care if things by itself...so, leftwing critic, you tell me what improvement we could expect to see in Iraq if we pulled out, now."

Very little of my post talked about why going into Iraq was a bad idea to begin with - rather, almost all of my post addressed why it is not a good idea to keep staying there NOW. Had you read it, you'd clearly see that. It is easy for you to mis-characterize my post now that you have deleted it.

I tell you what - why don't you put the post back and let readers decide. Afraid? You know, Neocon and I fight here all the time - but at least Neocon has the guts to actually debate.

That's gonna get deleted... :-p

Jeremiah -

"So, From what I gather, from your post is - Since we've not been attacked since 9/11, that it is now officially ok to take the risk/chance on another?"

If you could read, what you'd gather from my post is that our being in Iraq has nothing to do with whether we're attacked by terrorists or not.

We have al-qaeda working with sunni insurgents and Iran working with shia insurgents for the power over the third largest oil reserves in the world.
How in the he@@ is our military going to be able to tell which terrorist is al-qaeda and which is sunni.
Is the Soldier supposed to walk away if he sees or knows about a terrorist action from the sunni or shia.
Is al-qaeda going to start wearing a uniform so that we only kill al-qaeda terrorist and not a
sunni/shia insurgent.
This "only stay to kill al-qaeda" position is political nonsense and not a feasible solution
to help the Iraqi people defend themselves and bring some type of reconciliation.
To use Barbara Boxers own words"The debate is
over."To pull out of Iraq before they can establish their own security would allow mass Genocide and possibly all out war in the middle
east.
Your liberal heroes like Bill Clinton,Al Gore,
Hillary Clinton,John Kerry,Nancy Pelosi etc.etc.
all said Saddam had WMD's,ties to al-qaeda, sanctions were not working,and said he had to be stopped.
Your liberal heroes voted to send our Soldiers
to eliminate Saddam and provide a free system of
government for the Iraqi people. How about supporting them while they are doing it instead of
trying to find different ways for them to surrender.

Rana -

"As long as we are there in force, performing offensive operations. We will be a crutch. Period."

Good point. I made that argument as well in the post Mark deleted!

Babysitting the Iraqi army and police only diminishes their motivation and standing in Iraq.

There is no argument about the inhuman viciousness of Al-Qaeda. Anyone who disagrees with that should be banned from the blog for sheer stupidity. The true debate is and always has been was the war in Iraq the right way to go after them? Seven in ten Americans now say no.

The way forward is clearly to heal the Shia-Sunni breach so we can focus our military force on Al-Qaeda. Progress there is discouraging despite the "surge," which is nothing more than an Orwellian euphemism for "escalation." The fact that both Al Sadr loyal Shia and Sunni leaders have pulled back from the government is incredibly depressing. On top of that, the whole bunch is about to go on vacation for a month. It appears to be a stalemate and time is not on our side.

The time is rapidly coming when Iraq is going to be given a deadline for ending its civil war. If they come to their senses, we may yet get an anti-western but peaceful Muslim theocracy for all of our sacrifice. If they don't, at least Bush gave them a chance.

Mark -

"...so, leftwing critic, you tell me what improvement we could expect to see in Iraq if we pulled out, now."

I think what you fail to understand, rightwing cheerleader, is that we can expect little if any improvement in Iraq no matter what we do. There are no good options - only slightly less terrible ones. And the least terrible of the terrible options we have is to leave. Why? Because for every positive accomplishment we have been able to make by staying in Iraq, there are equally bad or worse unintended negative consequences.

What are some of those unintended negatives that outweigh the intended positives? Ah - they are in my deleted post. Why do you demand that I tell you things I've already told you in posts you've just deleted? (I guess I struck a nerve?)

It's great that the troops are fighting for democracy and to maintain order in Iraq, however with Senator Lugar and other Republicans pulling support from the war, one wonders if the Congress will give funding for the troops in September.

Aaron,

That is pathetic - "its all bad, so lets pull out".

Those are your brothers and sisters over there, Aaron, and if we pull out, they die - horribly; the "lucky" ones who live get to be enslaved to Islamo-fascists and become cannon fodder for war.

There is no justification for pulling out - regardless of cost, it is worth it to win and, also, no matter how many times you say it can't work, the plain fact of the matter is that it is working, more and more, every day...and you want to pull out. Why?

I'll tell you why - because you are so consumed with bitterness over Florida 2000 that you, deep down, figure a few hundred thousands deaths are worht it if it allows you to be smug and self-satisfied about your hatred.

...Soldiers from 5th IA said al Qaeda had cut the heads off the children.

Saddam Hussein and his bloody Ba'athist dictatorship killed about a million Muslims. Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists are viciously slaughtering Muslims by the tens of thousands - including beheading children. After WWII, when we learned that Hitler and the Nazis had slaughter 6 million Jews, didn't Western Civilization say, "Never again!" to allowing this type of slaughter to happen without stepping in to STOP it?!? The Left is screaming to pull out of Iraq and allow this slaughter to continue. What the hell is the matter with the Left?!?

How about stopping the genocide in Darfur - even though it's a Sudanese Civil War. 200,000 Black Muslims, Christians and animists have been wiped out by Arab Muslims and the Sudanese government. The Left seems happy to have us intervene in that Civil War. Why support the US in stopping Arab Janjaweed Muslims in Darfur from slaughtering Black Muslims/Christians/Animists; but oppose the US from stopping Al Qaeda Muslims/other terrorists from slaughtering Iraqi Muslims and Christians?

BTW, our savage foes in the UK terror attacks include TWO DOCTORS working in UK hospitals!!! The motivation to commit Islamic terrorism is not poverty or a lack of education it is...drumroll...ISLAM!

Freedom,

We've long ago stopped Saddam Hussein from committing genocide on his people. The current violence is mainly a tit-for-tat exchange between Sunni and Shia (including revenge killings like the one reported by Michael Yon), not a wholesale slaughter of one side or the other. These are people whose culture is much different than ours as it relates to death and killing - look how our friends and allies the Kurds openly allow honor killings - savage murders of young women by their own family members.

You raise a very good question regarding the left's position on Darfur verses it's position on Iraq. Though it's hard to find one voice that captures the position of the "leftists", I think it's safe to guess they would say they advocate a substantial UN peacekeeping force installed in Sudan, as opposed to an invasion and occupation by the US and a small number of allies. The same would go for any country where innocents are being killed, but where no direct attack is being made on the US or its allies.

BTW, the last two terrorist plots in the UK were conducted by British citizens. You can't really say we didn't have to fight them over here (Britain) because we were fighting them over there (Iraq). They radicalized themselves right where they were sitting.

And also BTW - we do hear you when you choose to label Islam as the problem as opposed to Islamism or radical Islam. You're not really helping matters by practically calling for a new era of "crusades".

"Casper,

You're barely answering it, but not really answering it...why would it be good to pull our troops out now? Even some of them...what improvement would there be if we pulled out...that's what you have to demonstrate; and if you can't, then you'd better get 100% on board with what we're doing."

Mark,
Can you prove that pulling most our troops out won't help the situation?
On one hand you claim we need to have troops there to protect the Iraqis, yet a large number of Iraqis are being killed now and have been over the last four years. Can you prove that more people will die if we pull out that are dying now?
You also assume that if we pull out that the Iraqi people will be enslaved to Islamo-fascists and become cannon fodder for war. Again where is your proof? You talk about them being our brave brothers and sisters yet you think so little of them that you assume they will all join the enemy as soon as we leave.

As I stated before, I am for leaving troops in Iraq to hunt al Qaeda and to train Iraqi troops, but leaving the bulk of our troops in the middle of a civil war makes no since.

Then what was keeping the terrorists from attacking US soil all those other years (and decades) we weren't in Iraq? - aaron

First of all this is a movement that was in its infancy decades ago and began to grow in ferocity in the late 80's and 90's. Their first attempt on the WTC in '93 was well orchestrated and WE WERE lucky their plans did not work out.

They have attempted other attacks here since 9/11 to no avail due to intelligence and diligent police work.

You seem to think the terrorists are now too busy killing Americans and others in Iraq to devote the time, manpower, or energy necessary to pull off similar deeds in the US. - aaron

I don't SEEM to think anything of the sort. What I do KNOW is that they are spending a great deal of time, resources and manpower on the battlefield in Iraq because they understand its importance, unlike you. And we are killing many more of them than they are of us.

In just one year, over 19,000 Americans die from accidental poisoning. In fact, you are far more likely to die from an earthquake, - aaron

This is something UBL would say to deflect attention away from his efforts. That's what I mean by calling you a useful idiot.

The difference between an earthquake and jihadists, aaron, just FYI, is that an earthquake is mostly unpredictable and unpreventable. The jihadists are entirely predictable and preventable, if we stay after them.

But terrorists have managed to carry out attacks in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, the UK, and elsewhere in the past few years (and these countries had often been attacked by terrorists before 9/11 as well). - aaron

What a great argument for continuing the fight. And this comes from someone who considers building allies improtant. So, if we walk away from this fight and only worry about our own soil, how do you suppose those other, more vulnerable, nations will feel about Americans? Does that build allies or destroy them?

Perhaps it's possible to avoid a war with Russia--though won't put it past the son to get the US involved in something like that.....nate

Cindy Sheehan is that you?

How many times did Saddam go out fishing with the Bushs? Fishing is a great setting for diplomacy, just FYI.

Getting back to the topic, Mark ended it thusly: You go read that linked article and then you tell me why it would be a good thing for the Iraqis and for us to leave before the Iraqi army is ready to take control of Iraqi security.

Ready to take control of Iraqi security in the service of whom? Little mention has been made of the value of the Iraqi government the Iraqi army is supposed to serve. The innate assumption seems to be that the government will remain dysfunctional unless security is established. Apart from the fact that no one seems to notice that that's a new assumption (in past years it was claimed that security couldn't be established until a functional government was in place), no one seems to question whether it's a legitimate assumption. Personally, I have very serious doubts. To me it borders on ridiculous to assume that results on the security front and the political front should be sequential. Rather, it seems far more reasonable to assume that improvements on both fronts should occur contingently, such that one supports the other. To the extent that the government remains moribund, any success on the military front is likely to be provisional at best. At least that's what the Army Counterinsurgency Manual suggests.

Ready to take control of Iraqi security in the service of whom? Little mention has been made of the value of the Iraqi government the Iraqi army is supposed to serve. - rico

Rico,

Considering that this newly elected gov't is still in its infancy and has never before in the countries history attempted a representative gov't, don't you suppose that there will be years of growing pains? Coupling that with the fact that this representative gov't also depends on the cooperation of rival tribal factions, makes this exercise even more complicated.

The left seems to think that everything should happen in their expected time frames or its just not worth the effort. That's a hell of way to build allies, as they constantly preach.

"If you could read, what you'd gather from my post is that our being in Iraq has nothing to do with whether we're attacked by terrorists or not."
-Aarontime,

I can read just fine, Thank you!

Now, let's see if you can read?

What do Hornets usually do when you throw a rock into their castle?

Jeremiah

The reason why we should leave now is simple: Our presence there is not creating any long-term improvements to the situation. There has been no decrease in violence, no lessening of sectarian tensions, and no political progress. Given these trends, its is reasonable to assume that we are in fact, not accomplishing anything. Therefore, whether we leave now or later, the same problems will occur.

If the same outcome is expected whether we leave now or 5, 10, or 20 years from now, then obviously we should leave now. At least we can save several thousand more US dead, as well as billions of dollars.

There are plenty of other reasons why we should not stay in Iraq, but this is the crux of the matter: we are not accomplishing anything more there, and we won't accomplish anything more no matter how long we stay.

What are your stated reasons for wanting to stay? (Besides a desire to pass this problem off to the next President and thus give yourself someone other than Dear Leader Bush to blame.)

I would be all for us leaving troops to hunt al Qaeda and to train the Iraqis, however most of our troops are in the middle of a civil war and need to be pulled out.

Casper,

I'm truly glad your daughter has returned safely from the battlefield, and I praise her service. However, I've encountered many active-duty troops who want to win this battle, and who feel that our efforts in Iraq are just. And productive.

My friend, we must win this battle. There are many that are going to follow. We don't want another 1993--it could be disasterous.

Once again, Casper, many thanks to your daughter, and to you...

keefer,
Thank you for the kind words. I know there are many active-duty troops who feel our efforts are just. I have a couple of former students that feel very strongly that way. I am just as proud of them as I am of my daughter. There's not a single one I wouldn't take out for a beer, as long as they are of age.

neocon: Considering that this newly elected gov't is still in its infancy and has never before in the countries history attempted a representative gov't, don't you suppose that there will be years of growing pains?

Growing pains? That sounds nicely benign. How about ripped apart? Is that okay with you?

Without detailed inside information it is indeed hard to discern where the Iraqi gov't is headed. But the trend seems to be in the direction of disintegration, not integration. More and more factions are dropping their support of the gov't. It's happening in stages, but it appears that it's getting to the point of "critical mass", which is to say that the Maliki gov't could face a vote of no confidence not too far in the future. That may be a good thing. Then again, maybe it's not. It would very much depend upon what replaces it, if and when it happens.

It also appears that the "surge" is provoking, or at least hastening, the Maliki govt's travel to the brink. The trouble is, there is very little reporting on what, exactly, is going on. So it's hard to say whether this is an intended or an unintended consequence, and whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. But on the basis of Bush administration comments it would seem like it's an unintended consequence, and generally viewed as not helpful. Ambassador Crocker's recent comments, and the recent assessment of the Chatham House think tank generally concur.

There is, at present, no unifying political theme, nor a unifying political personality in Iraq. Not at present. And the only one that seems to be actively pursuing that theme and that position is... wait for it... Muqtadah al Sadr. I'm sure you're going to hate this next article, because it's from The Nation. But I think it summarizes, better than any other I have read from less contentious sources (which I would have to build up for you in piece-meal fashion), the predominant, street-supported political movement that is gaining steam in Iraq, and the various forces attempting to counteract it -- for example, these.

In light of your "growing pains" argument, at what point does the notion of "growing pains" cease and the notion of "ripped apart" prevail? More importantly, at what point it is appropriate to ask... what the heck are WE fighting for if the IRAQIS don't even know? And what is the proper deployment of our troops in that respect? Are we postponing the inevitable or preventing it? I would argue that there are no simple, cookie-cutter answers. And I wish to hell BOTH sides here at home would start addressing the issue honestly, instead of talking past each other and presenting, time after time, the same simple 15 second sound-bite type arguments that don't even scratch the surface of the real complexity involved. So many times we hear that the only viable choices are (1) support the "surge" no matter what, or (2) get out as quickly as possible. To me, both options are unrealistic. They only serve to widen the gap that actually exists between us, presumably for political gain.

It would be nice to think that at some point Bush would seriously level with us, and let us know where the situation really stands and what really is at stake. Does he have an obligation to tell us that the Maliki gov't is getting close to the point where it is likely to tumble? What else does he have to lose at this point? And if not him, then who?

How about ripped apart? Is that okay with you? - rico

A little dramatic there aren't you? Of course liberals are known for their drama. Maliki needs to get his act together and prove that he can bring this country together, or they'll replace him and move on, as they did with Al-Jafaari. There are enough people involved in the process in Iraq and enough is at stake that they will come to a resolution, and it doesn't speak well of you, or other liberals to continue to denigrate their ability to just that.

Do you consider them just completely incompetent of reconciling? Do you hold that low of regard for them?

It also appears that the "surge" is provoking, or at least hastening, the Maliki govt's travel to the brink.

And that would be a good thing.

And the only one that seems to be actively pursuing that theme and that position is... wait for it... Muqtadah al Sadr. - rico

That's only because that is the name that we Americans, and the rest of the world have heard so much about. Do you suppose that there is a well respected person in Iraq that we, or the media has yet to glom onto? Or are you familiar now with every single Iraqi that you consider qualified for the position. I mean after all, liberals have become such experts on iraqis and what they are, and are not capable of, right?

So many times we hear that the only viable choices are (1) support the "surge" no matter what, or (2) get out as quickly as possible. - rico

Well, this I will agree with somewhat. However the surge in its first few weeks of full deployment, so it hasn't even had the time to gauge whether or not it merits full support.

Your argument, I assume, is based on the Democrats lack of support for the surge before it even started despite the fact that they unanimously voted for the author of the surge to lead the effort. Interesting huh? Agenda?

Ya know what? Instead of convincing US that we need to pull out and leave Iraq to the mercy of these savages, why don't you convince your own leadership.

They OBVIOUSLY don't believe it either - or we'd be out of there already. They tell YOU they want to pull out. And well, you're kind of gullible. You'll argue against the war all over again as they pretend to do something about it. But next year, we'll still be there. And our foes will be heartened by the continous attacks on our troops and leaders by YOU.

Talk to Reid and Pelosi - not to us.

BTW, the last two terrorist plots in the UK were conducted by British citizens. You can't really say we didn't have to fight them over here (Britain) because we were fighting them over there (Iraq). They radicalized themselves right where they were sitting. Posted by: extramedium

Of course. Wherever Islam is preached, violence, honor killings, and terrorism happen. Islam is the cause of Islamic terrorism. That's why Western nations need to STOP all Muslim immigration and start DEPORTING Muslims who refuse to renounce Islam. You're fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.

And also BTW - we do hear you when you choose to label Islam as the problem as opposed to Islamism or radical Islam. You're not really helping matters by practically calling for a new era of "crusades". Posted by: extramedium

First, Islam is the problem. Not Islamism. Not "radical Islam". Second, the first Crusade was called only after over 450 years aggressive Islamic jihads against Christendom. If it weren't for the Crusaders, Europe would have been conquered by the Muslim invaders a thousand years ago.

Extramedium, people like you who avoid the truth -that Islam is the cause of Islamic terrorism - are killing people. This head-in-the-sand approach to Islam's global war against the West is getting hundreds of people slaughtered by Muslims each month- in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in India, etc.. Just ask the Buddhists of Thailand.

Latest GWOT Headlines from ReligionOfPeace.com:

"Al-Qaeda Suicide Bomber Snuffs Out 9 Lives in Yemen..."
"Poverty the Root of Terror? Try Education, Status, and Islam..."
"Malaysia: Whipping, Prison and Fines for Anyone Trying to Convert Muslims..."

"(Florida) 'Allah is Great... I'm Going to Blow this Place Up'..."
"Surprise? Glasgow Suspects 'Not Believed to be of Scottish Origin'"
"UK Islamic Leader Claims 'War on Islam', Promises More Terror..."
"Human Shield Tactics Paying Off for the Taliban..."
"Report: Iran Using Hezbollah as Terror Proxy in Iraq..."

"New Pictures of Glasgow Terror as Muslim Physicians Captured..."
"Will Australia Heed Wake-Up Call?"
"Man Gang-Raped, Tortured for Refusing to Convert to Islam..."
"Bangladeshi Mob Savagely Beats Converts to Christianity..."
"'Everytime He Threw a Punch, He Was Saying 'Allah''..."

Freedom,

I appreciate your frankness and courage, even though I disagree with you. This would be a good debate had these comments occurred sooner, but I think folks have moved on to newer threads. I'm interested to hear what other folks at BFB, in particular conservatives, think about your ideas for confronting Islam. Thus far they've been pretty silent when you've said these things. I'll raise it again when folks are still paying attention.

Ok.

If we had not disrupted Iraq, there would not be hundreds of innocent Iraqis dying every day. Iran would not be close to producing a nuclear bomb. Those two things alone are on Bush's head and all the support and excuses you make will not change the facts.

After you're willing to discuss those facts, we can get to the damage Bush has done to our national reputation, our Army, our financial stability, and, worst of all, our Constitution.

"And yet, not one major domestic incident."

The Anthrax Attacks happened since 9/11. And don't give me that garbage about "IT WASN'T A TERRORIST ATTACK". Six years ago you were saying 9/11 was God's revenge on America due to our tolerance of the homosexual lifestyle. You were awrong about 9/11 then and you are wrong about the Anthrax Attacks now.