"Ultimately, success in Iraq will require the same initiative that resulted in success in Northern Ireland, and that is the residents getting sick and tired of getting killed for someone else's fight. Iraq was and is a tribal society."

So American troops will be in Iraq for half a century?"

The fighting in Northern Ireland went on for about 300 years. The original English invasion actually occured a little over 900 years ago, several centuries later the englich massacured the Irish in Northern Ireland. If it takes us as long in Iraq as it did the English in Ireland we will see sucess inabout 2300 AD.

If Nancy Pelosi wanted to she could keep funding bills from ever comming up for a vote. When she decides to end the war, it is over.

Blaming the Iraqis for the faliure of our policy seems like a strange concept to me. What are we blaiming them for? Not going along with our plan? Maybe it is different than what they want? Maybe they want to split up into 3 counrties, I bet a lot of them would welcom a civil war. Blaming the failure of our strategy on the Iraqis may be like "blaming" someone for not liking flavored coffee.

$10 Billion dollars a month= standing to complain

I think that would inclued men in the same situation as well.

I am not a lawyer, but I think that means you cannot do something, have that outlawed and then be punished for doing it before it was made illegal.

"You have to actually have some courage to be able to handle liberty, because you have to be able to live with the fact that a nation dedicated to securing liberties for its citizens is going to be less safe than one that finds notions of liberty and inalienable individual rights bothersome."

You may be safer from some enemies, but a government that gets too much power can be pretty lethal to it's own citizens.

Vote republican because those who refuse to give up liberty for security hate America

You have your sign on in the corner. That is not anonymous.

all theses people would want to leave.

This is interesting. I don't think he is being sold to the Iraqis, I think he is being sold to the Americans. It makes sense for us to pick their leaders because Iraq is a Democracy.

This will be eaten right up by the media.

1, Andrew, hope you had a nice vacation.

2, A lot of the "investors" are not just the super rich, they include retirement funds that may very well have some of your money.

3, unlike mortgage debt credit card debt is not backed by something a lender can seize and repay the debt. These may turn into 100% losses.

That is how we beat the british in the revolutionary war. Making your enemy think the fighting will be never ending is how you beat a superior force.

Ouch!!!

now go get the ball...play dead... Whose a good congress...you are that who.

In the end they will do whatever he demands.

If we attack Iran they would probable attempt several strategies of retaliation.

1, They would want to sink a ship in the straights of Hormuz, that would prevent 40% of the worlds oil from comming to market and drive the price way up.

2, As part of our current strategy in Iraq we have a lot of forward bases. These are smaller, some what isolated bases that are more vunrable than the green zone.

3, Either Hesbala or Hamas has an orginazation in South America. There was a large group of immagrants from Iran to south America about 30 or 40 years ago. The people there are native speakers of spanish and some of them can pass for hispanics. Iran would probably try to get some of them to attack. A group of them has already made statements to the effect that if we hit Iran, they will come north (it was on MSNBC.com a few months ago).

An attack on Iran would be bad news, but in the long run a millitary that does not obey the civilian, elected leadership would be far worse.

Whenever I make a crazy statement that I think will elicit a strong response like "I think Al Gore cost Ralph Nader the 2000 election", I get nothing. Make a statement like "the millitary should continue to take orders from elected officials", someone freaks out.

This president defends all his actions as legal, what general should we allow to interperate the laws?

"Not in court he doesn't. Only in press releases. It's no different from me claiming that the Constitution gives me the right to murder people willy-nilly."

-- Margalis

You can claim the right to do that, but try it and you will be stopped. This president makes claim about what his powers are and excercises those powers, and is almost never stopped.

If tommorow George Bush said "I am King now, so go open some death camps", then yes he would be stopped. Any reasonably defendable action (like attacking an enemy) would pretty much have to be carried out.

By the way, it wasn't you but someone did freak out.

When a US citizen was taken from Chicago and held for a couple of years in a navy brig without trial or even charges, did the officers involved do anything? No. Not because the forgot their oath, but because the white house has done everything it could to blur the lines. What is legal or illegal is now very confusing to a lot of people. If this most fundamental right (habius corpus) can be blured, what can't?

The cold blooded murder of an elderly man is pretty clear, it is a lot more clear than "should we attack an enemy that we think will attack us before they can hit us?".

"'WE' who? The same 'we' that fucked up Iraq and got us into this horrid mess we're in? That 'WE'?"

Yes that WE.