Almost everyone including Iraq liberation supporters have had the wrong objectives for Iraq.
None of the anti-liberation supporters would logically be calling for a troop pullout if there were
no US troop deaths.
The proof is Kosovo.
These same anti-liberations supported the sterile bombing from 15,000 feet and killing civilians
but there were no troops killed.
Iraq US troop deaths were inevitable. While 250,000 troops should have been sent do you really
think that number would be supported by the anti-administration supporters?
Consequently President Bush knew these anti-liberation people would have balked at that number
and based on the facts the overthrow of Saddam WAS accomplished with 150,000 troops the
issue was exacerbated by those anti-Bush people that supported the thug/barbarians.
This support prolonged the conflict and it wasn't till the rules of engagement were changed and
30,000 more troops sent did the abatement of US troop deaths occurred.
As a result, since the US has troops still after 60 years in many countries the only distinction
the anti-freedom supporters can draw is US troop deaths.  Reduce the deaths as it is now
being done, BUT leave the 130,000 troops to help is the solution.
Accept the US will be in Iraq and as long as there are continual diminishing US troop deaths
everyone will forget just like most Americans forget our troops in 130 other countries.
The objective should be diminished deaths BUT not withdrawal.

" The objective should be diminished deaths BUT not withdrawal. "

 

Gee I kinda figured the diminished deaths part would happen when 1.) the Iraqi people built a working miliatry and police force to take care of themselves 2.) they would develop a government that could provide the country all the rebuilding needed based on their natural resource.

 

Of course if they started to make real goals at taking care of the 2 things listed above, a troop reduction or withdrawal would automaticaly take care of its self.

You really need to read the twice weekly report from this site:
www.brookings.edu/iraqindex  latest date of  November 19,2007:
This index has continued to show the following on page 30 -
Total Iraq Police/Security force:359,700 and they are continuing to be
trained to take over the US troops role.


In addition, you are ignoring the ground up participation which is even better then the top
down push from central govt.
Now Iraqis are looking at the central govt as an ATM (a phrase being used) as the means to
distribute oil revenue and they are building neighbor/suburb and regional alliances - all
against the thug/barbarians.

Just admit it Briscoe, being an old yellow dog Democrat who does appreciate the Bob Bullock
brand of politics you hate Bush!  That's it.

" Total Iraq Police/Security force:359,700 and they are continuing to be
trained to take over the US troops role. "

 

After more time than it took us to win WWII then 359,700 warm bodies not being able to function on it's own should be more than obvious even to the die hard lovers there is a really large large problem. If in all reality the 359,700 were functioning as a real Police/Security force the drawdown would take care of its self!


" In addition, you are ignoring the ground up participation which is even better then the top
down push from central govt. "

 

Now you are contradicting yourself. You see the so called "ground up" participation of which you talk about means the "thugs" are now on our side. If you think this leporads have changed their spots than you need to show them some love because a couple of months ago they were killing our troops.

 

" Now Iraqis are looking at the central govt as an ATM (a phrase being used) as the means to
distribute oil revenue and they are building neighbor/suburb and regional alliances - all
against the thug/barbarians. "

 

So much for Rumfeld telling us the oil will help pay for our efforts and the cost will be about 50 billion.

" Just admit it Briscoe, being an old yellow dog Democrat who does appreciate the Bob Bullock
brand of politics you hate Bush!  That's it. "

 

Not a problem, all you have to admit to is that 1.) you ain't going over to put your rear on the line 2.) you ain't gonna reach into first a$$ national and fork over the money to pay for it but you don't have any problem wanting me to pay a couple of trillion that I admit I don't have.

 

Ya gotta luv the hawks, they can't put up and they can shut up.

 

:-)

Oh yeah, I was never a fan of Bullock but I did like Mark White.