Ted,
As a personal aside, I appologize if that came off sounding like an attack. I respect your opinions. I do want this article/piece/posting/blog to be an exchange of ideas and opinions. Sometimes it seems a little too one sided around here. That gets stagnant. So please excuse me if I play devil's advocate from time to time.

Although I agree with that from a moral perspective, it does beg the question, "Who invited us in the first place?"

Very true and the crux of the debate. However, who is villifying whom for Rwanda and Sudan? Sometimes, good people must act to stop evil. Period. Now that should be the debate. And I dont think you want to argue the con side of it.

", it does beg the question, "Who invited us in the first place?"

Hussein, when he violated the terms of the Gulf War cease fire, fired on our aircraft, paid bounties to suicide bombers, thwarted sanctions and starved his people, etc. Just because one President could ignore it for eight years doesn't mean every President would.

And I dont think you want to argue the con side of it.

No way Jose! Besides, I'm too nice, and I'm Catholic (wink); I'd suffer from terminal guilt!

Hussein, when he violated the terms of the Gulf War cease fire, fired on our aircraft, paid bounties to suicide bombers, thwarted sanctions and starved his people, etc. Just because one President could ignore it for eight years doesn't mean every President would.

Point well taken. But isn't that more in the UN's lane than the U.S.? We did fire back in the no fly zones, and quite accurately as I remember. Personally I thought Clinton could have been a little more aggressive than he was.

No way Jose! Besides, I'm too nice, and I'm Catholic (wink); I'd suffer from terminal guilt!

I gathered that from my religion stuff. I would like you to correct, or comment on my Catholic stuff. It was inspired by someone who called Catholicism a cult. he later backpedalled. But I see the misconceptions all the time, and I am not a scholar by any means. I just left and came back when I realized that what I did not like, I did not understand, or they figured it was just smoke and mirrors.

But dont worry about the terminal Guilt. My Rabbi friend says that is a hold over from our roots!

The real measure of Bush attacking Iraq and removing Saddam will be the type of government that emerges after we leave. The shape of that government or the process by which it is establish may set the stage for our future relationship with the new Iraq. If we are unbable to deal with that government of Iraq like we can not deal with Iran or Seria, this war will be a total failure.

2. What do you think would happen when we withdraw? All hell could break loose or the Sunnis would no longer join the al Qaeda thugs and chse them out. When you enter war its an unknowable and ending it, too, is unpredictable.

Ted, As a personal aside, I appologize if that came off sounding like an attack. I respect your opinions. I do want this article/piece/posting/blog to be an exchange of ideas and opinions. Sometimes it seems a little too one sided around here. That gets stagnant. So please excuse me if I play devil's advocate from time to time.

Not at all Nadeon, I didn't feel attacked at all.

WIth respect, The whole "when will that be" thing is a red herring. We have never asked ourselves that in any war up until now, so why is it such an all-fired important question now?

When we deployed to Desert Shield, there was no "time table", rotation schedule or anything else. When I watched the coast of the U.S. disappear I had no idea when I'd be seeing it again. Even after the air war started, there was no talk of "when". "The quickest way home is through Baghdad" was the running joke... but that was all we had.

When Murtha, Kerry, or anyone else whining for a time table can show me where they called for a time table before, I might quit laughing in their faces. ;~D

Hussein, when he violated the terms of the Gulf War cease fire, fired on our aircraft, paid bounties to suicide bombers, thwarted sanctions and starved his people, etc. Just because one President could ignore it for eight years doesn't mean every President would. Point well taken. But isn't that more in the UN's lane than the U.S.? We did fire back in the no fly zones, and quite accurately as I remember. Personally I thought Clinton could have been a little more aggressive than he was.

Nadeon, remember, there was the Ceasefire signed outside of Safwan then there was the UN Resolutions based on that ceasefire agreement. No one from the UN signed the Safwan Accords. The UN Resolution was between Iraq and The UN... The Safwan Accords were between the US led Coalition and Iraq.

If the UN was too spineless, cowardly and criminal to back it's own resolution that didn't mean we couldn't enforce the ceasefire.

It's kind of ironic, Prs. Clinton used enforcement of the ceasefire as the basis for bombing targets in Iraq, without playing "Mother May I" games with the UN... and nobody questioned it. However, when Prs. Bush used the same Ceasefire agreement as the basis to return to hostilities, all of the sudden it was all about the UN resolution and the ceasefire agreement between the US & Iraq was forgotten.

Apparently to too many "who" was in the White House was more important than "what" was done to enforce the ceasefire agreement... or even the agreement itself.

Personally, I wish that Prs. Clinton had have made the call to return to hostilities with Iraq. I remember talking to the guys when the ceasefire order was given. We talked about how it will be great to go home, but keep out bags packed because we will be back.

I didn't think me and my buddies would have to pass the job on to the next generation of troops.

We knew we completed every part of the mission we had been ordered to do, but when we left Hussein untouched, it just didn't feel complete.

When several Arab newspapers started praising Hussien for standing up to, and beating the U.S... well, we knew what they (and He) really thought about that "ceasefire". Signing it must have been the first time he'd ever touched toilet paper with his right hand.

The shape of that government or the process by which it is establish may set the stage for our future relationship with the new Iraq. If we are unbable to deal with that government of Iraq like we can not deal with Iran or Seria, this war will be a total failure.

No loser Colon. I know you only care about failure, but here's some reality to slap in your wimpy little face. We aren't setting up a puppet government to play toady to the U.S., we are giving the people of Iraq an opportunity to set up a government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE and FOR THE PEOPLE.

Quit setting up no win scenarios, just so you can blame Bush when your terms aren't met. Oh, and go change your diaper, you're stinking to high heaven!

Can anyone explain to me how did Col gene ever right a book, as he claimed he did, with all that illiteracy that plagues the political section of JU?

Maybe he "dictated" it to someone else who could use a typewriter or keyboard better. Maybe he should stick to morse code when posting here.

Can anyone explain to me how did Col gene ever right a book, as he claimed he did, with all that illiteracy that plagues the political section of JU?

Have you seen Mikey Moron's movies?  To them, facts dont matter.  So I am sure COl Klink's book is as factual as Farenheit 9-11

Withdraw within 6 months or later? Why?

Well not being a soldier and not being in Iraq makes me feel bad that they have to be there when they would rather be here at home specially during X-mas. But I think that if within 6 months Iraq can do more for themselves then we should start moving some of our soldiers back home. Full withdraw at 6 months would be crazy and we all know it.

What do you think would happen when we withdraw?

I believe things will look as if all is well at first, but things will change and it might even seem that they will go right back to how things were. But I like to believe that there could be hope, although Iraqis are not exactly showing the love for their new lifestyle and future. I would like to , at least, give it the benefit of the doubt that it will not go back to exactly what it was. After all, many of us here have said before weirder things have happend. I would have to say that it would be ignorant to think that Iraq will soon be anything like the US, like some said, it too hundreds of years to get to where we are, it's a matter of letting the Iraqis take this opportunity and run with it rather than let it go to waste. I hate to think that this is a one time opportunity and that the only next solution to the problem would have a mushroom cloud as a center piece.

What do you think needs to happen before we withdraw (realistically)?

First that we would agree that the Iraqi forces are good enough, not perfect, just good enough. That we feel that what we set out to do is done and the Iraqi people will have to continue from there cause there is not much more we can do. More signs of exceptance of the new lifestyle they have. I don't mean saying thanx but at least they could act as if they care and maybe start bringing to the light the terrorist that hide within them.

That's what I think. I know it all sounds like a dream but it's what I think should happen or at least I hope it does. I would hate to think that we went there for all the wrong reasons and then left without a care.