Petraeus To Call For More Troops Out Of Iraq By July In Response To Military, Political Progress (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/petraeus_to_call_for_more_troops_out_of_iraq_by_ju ly_in_response_to_militar/)

Turns out that President Bush and General Petraeus (General Betrayus to the Democrats and their friends at MoveOn.org) were right about this new strategy in Iraq (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3406008.ece). At least so far.

General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, is drawing up plans to pull more troops out of the country after July on the back of a sharp drop in attacks and long-awaited progress on the political front.

The suggestions, which will depend upon conditions on the ground, are due to be presented as part of a new report on Iraq to George Bush, the US President, towards the end of next month, which will be put before Congress by early April.
Military progress. Political progress. Peace breaking out. Troops coming home.

Meanwhile, Democrat front runner Barack Obama continues to campaign on withdrawing from Iraq. Why? Because to the left the actual situation in Iraq no longer matters. To them, the perception of the war is more important than a reality, and if they (with some help from their mouthpieces in the media) can still make Iraq seem like a Bush/Republican failure it helps them politically.

Because that’s what the Democrats have invested themselves in when it comes to Iraq. Defeat. And that’s all they’re willing to accept (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/end_the_war_in_iraq_means_lose_the_war_in_iraq/).

yeah!:drinktoth

To me this sounds terribly of a political decision and not a military one.

No doubt some encouraging results are being achieved in parts of Iraq, yet at what cost.

Given that a Presidential election will be looming by the time of a said withdrawal, it would be more prudent to leave the troops confined to barracks in Iraq for six months to see how it pans out.

That way the next President will be able to review how things are going.

Given that a Presidential election will be looming by the time of a said withdrawal, it would be more prudent to leave the troops confined to barracks in Iraq for six months to see how it pans out.

Why? If they are not needed there anymore why keep them for any period of time? Keeping them there if they are not needed would be wrong. There is no need to let them stay there for the new management to access the situation. Hillary is going to be ready on day one.... Obama is going to pull them in a year and McCain is going to continue with the progress already in place.

Why? If they are not needed there anymore why keep them for any period of time? Keeping them there if they are not needed would be wrong. There is no need to let them stay there for the new management to access the situation. Hillary is going to be ready on day one.... Obama is going to pull them in a year and McCain is going to continue with the progress already in place.
So what your saying is,pull them before the election to deny the next President the choice any credit which may come from that, wheras pulling them before the election would be a major boost to McCain.

Once again the lives of people on the other side of the planet become pawns in US domestic politics.

I was suggesting confining them to barracks in Iraq to see how things went without them being out and about,simply on logistical reasons.

If required as say backup to Iraqi Forces, they're already on the ground.

So what your saying is,pull them before the election to deny the next President the choice any credit which may come from that, wheras pulling them before the election would be a major boost to McCain.

Once again the lives of people on the other side of the planet become pawns in US domestic politics.

I was suggesting confining them to barracks in Iraq to see how things went without them being out and about,simply on logistical reasons.

If required as say backup to Iraqi Forces, they're already on the ground.
I'd say either way would be politically motivated. Let the General do whatever he feels is best for the situation AND the troups.

BTW - paul, I doubt many soldiers would be too thrilled to be confined to barracks throughout the holidays... just to let the next administration feel "warm and fuzzy".

I'd say either way would be politically motivated. Let the General do whatever he feels is best for the situation AND the troups.
Whose is to say the General isnt politically motivated.

BTW - paul, I doubt many soldiers would be too thrilled to be confined to barracks throughout the holidays... just to let the next administration feel "warm and fuzzy".To be honest,I dont think it matters whether the troops are thrilled or not, their professionals.

So what your saying is,pull them before the election to deny the next President the choice any credit which may come from that, wheras pulling them before the election would be a major boost to McCain.

Once again the lives of people on the other side of the planet become pawns in US domestic politics.

I was suggesting confining them to barracks in Iraq to see how things went without them being out and about,simply on logistical reasons.

If required as say backup to Iraqi Forces, they're already on the ground.



Get off it, Paul. Your damned if they do damned if they don't crap is getting more than a little old.

If they don't pull out the troops they are wrong. If they pull out the troops they are wrong. No matter what is done the Bush Administration and by extensiion the United States is wrong.

Give it a rest.

Whose is to say the General isnt politically motivated.
Who is to say that he is? You?

To be honest,I dont think it matters whether the troops are thrilled or not, their professionals.
Many are professionals all right... professional carpenters, engineers, nurses, cops, factory workers, etc. along with being fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters.

I'd suggest you don't "be honest", if that is your form of "truth".

To me this sounds terribly of a political decision and not a military one.

I agree. We already know Gen Petrayus is a very political man.

Because that’s what the Democrats have invested themselves in when it comes to Iraq. Defeat. And [/COLOR]that’s all they’re willing to accept (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/end_the_war_in_iraq_means_lose_the_war_in_iraq/).

This talk of "victory and defeat" only makes you sound out of touch.

We WON the "war" in Iraq years ago.

To claim we did not is a slap in the face of every soldier who served there and sacrificed for that victory.

I agree. We already know Gen Petrayus is a very political man.

Facts or just your personal opinion?

Inquiring minds need to know. Of course, I'm sure you could do a much better job than he, when it comes to managing a war zone and securing the peace in Iraq.

Facts or just your personal opinion?

Facts. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/president-petraeus-iraqi-official-recalls-the-day-us-general-revealed-ambition-402195.html)

No. Some real facts... not just some conjecture on the part of a liberal UK newpaper that cannot support their claims.

Good Lord, I'm surprised that you didn't post something from the Huffington Post or Moveon.org.

Why not look up some shit on Wesley Clark... he stands about as good a chance as Petrayus as far as getting elected to POTUS.... LOL

BTW... what year did you graduate from Annapolis or West Point? Since you are the "all knowing" source on the required levels of military forces in a middle eastern occupation/regime change?

That's what I thought.:lolhit:

Get off it, Paul. Your damned if they do damned if they don't crap is getting more than a little old.

If they don't pull out the troops they are wrong. If they pull out the troops they are wrong. No matter what is done the Bush Administration and by extensiion the United States is wrong.

Give it a rest.

No no no Frogger,hold on.

The surge as has been claimed, does indeed seem to be bearing fruit, that said, with 'Iraq' being such a political 'hot potato' in the Presidential election,
any major shift on policy has to be seen as political at this stage.

Secondly. If General Prateus thought that troops wouldnt be needed after the summer, why would they be withdrawn completely.

Any military would confine them to base for a set period as 'back up' to the local Iraqi police and troops.

Are you suggesting the timing is just a coincidence?

I think that every single take out there on the situation in Iraq is 80% spin.

Thats why no major change should be considered until after election time.

No. Some real facts...

:bombout:

I think that every single take out there on the situation in Iraq is 80% spin.

what a cop out.

Thats why no major change should be considered until after election time.

Why would you wait for election time when those in charge feel that it is better to pull them out now? That makes no sense to me. All Iraq is these days is a political platform. For the most part, Iraq is secure. If the General, and President thinks it's time to cut back troops, then why would it matter? Waiting to pull them out until after election time would be nothing more than political posturing.

Because that’s what the Democrats have invested themselves in when it comes to Iraq. Defeat. And that’s all they’re willing to accept (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/end_the_war_in_iraq_means_lose_the_war_in_iraq/).

Damn...too bad you didn't leave this part out...you almost had me until you included this absurd nonsense.

Military progress. Political progress. Peace breaking out.

?!?!?

Let me see if I understand you here.

Are you saying you believe that "Peace is breaking out" in Iraq?

I think that every single take out there on the situation in Iraq is 80% spin.
I have to agree with you there. And unfortunately, the spin is now what the debate on Iraq is based on, and what politicians base their opinions on. I wish for once they would just cut through all the bullshit and look at the situation in Iraq with just an ounce of objectivity.

I have to agree with you there. And unfortunately, the spin is now what the debate on Iraq is based on, and what politicians base their opinions on. I wish for once they would just cut through all the bullshit and look at the situation in Iraq with just an ounce of objectivity.
It can't happen. War is chaotic. The only true take you can get is a personal one, everything else is hearsay. And even the personal views are limited. The war debate was always based on spin, every war debate from now into antiquity was, and it will continue to be so until we come up with technologies to accurately describe what's going on in the war.

It can't happen. War is chaotic. The only true take you can get is a personal one, everything else is hearsay. And even the personal views are limited. The war debate was always based on spin, every war debate from now into antiquity was, and it will continue to be so until we come up with technologies to accurately describe what's going on in the war.

I'm not sure I agree. The spin isn't something we have to figure out how to see past, it's something we have to figure out how to stop making. It comes from us, not from some outside source.

It can't happen. War is chaotic. The only true take you can get is a personal one, everything else is hearsay. And even the personal views are limited. The war debate was always based on spin, every war debate from now into antiquity was, and it will continue to be so until we come up with technologies to accurately describe what's going on in the war.
There are many aspects of the war that are just plain facts and can be seen for what they are, void of any spin. You also don't have to be personally involved in the war in order to see them. The problem is that people will spin those facts to suit their predetermined views, or even just ignore them completely. They've essentially decided on a solution without even looking at the problem, and will depend on spin and cherry-picking to make their case. That is neither necessary nor useful.

I mean, you can look at the facts of the war, the number of war dead, number of attacks, and everything, but none of these things are going to give you a full picture of how the war is progressing. Sure, some facts are available, but a war is very chaotic, and even the generals labor to get good intelligence. It's a gigantic clusterfuck. You can look at the facts without spin, but you just can't figure out what they mean objectively. Only in hindsight can you actually see how things progressed. I think the average citizen knew next to nothing about World War Two until long after the war was over and scholars pored over the documents and recordings to paint an objective big picture. All they had while the war was going on was propaganda. Cable news and the Internet has made the picture somewhat better, but I think we would be fooling ourselves if we think it's the be-all end-all. We still have garbage going in, so most of what's coming out is garbage. We'll have to wait for the scholars to catch up to get an accurate picture.

Why would you wait for election time when those in charge feel that it is better to pull them out now? That makes no sense to me. All Iraq is these days is a political platform. For the most part, Iraq is secure. If the General, and President thinks it's time to cut back troops, then why would it matter? Waiting to pull them out until after election time would be nothing more than political posturing.
Because Phyrex Iraq is a main election topic in the Presidential race.
Any withdrawal of troops from Iraq would look very nice on the Republican candidates resume.
That said, why would they be removed from the nation at all, without confinement to base first, that makes no sense, putting them on the street [if need be] is faster, and more cost effective than a re-deployment.

If the General thinks troops could be going home by the summer, why is it that these troops arent confined to base now, to see how the Iraqis deal with security themselves.

I have to agree with you there. And unfortunately, the spin is now what the debate on Iraq is based on, and what politicians base their opinions on. I wish for once they would just cut through all the bullshit and look at the situation in Iraq with just an ounce of objectivity.

IMO, Joe Biden has been speaking openly, objectively and honestly for years about Iraq.

Because Phyrex Iraq is a main election topic in the Presidential race.
Any withdrawal of troops from Iraq would look very nice on the Republican candidates resume.
That said, why would they be removed from the nation at all, without confinement to base first, that makes no sense, putting them on the street [if need be] is faster, and more cost effective than a re-deployment.

If the General thinks troops could be going home by the summer, why is it that these troops arent confined to base now, to see how the Iraqis deal with security themselves.

We aren't going to pull every single troop we have out of Iraq, Paul. We will probably leave 20ish thousand or so there for the foreseeable future. I mean, there are 20 thousand US troops in Korea right now.

I am also aware that Iraq is a political platform, but don't you think that leaving all the troops in Iraq is a positive thing for the Democrats, in terms of campaigning? That is one of their main talking points against the Republicans. Why should the troops have to suffer so that the Dems can still rag on the Reps until after election time? So what if you give the Reps something positive to gloat about if all (most) of the troops are pulled, its about being objective on the situation.

Old men argue, and young men die, Paul.

We aren't going to pull every single troop we have out of Iraq, Paul. We will probably leave 20ish thousand or so there for the foreseeable future. I mean, there are 20 thousand US troops in Korea right now.

I am also aware that Iraq is a political platform, but don't you think that leaving all the troops in Iraq is a positive thing for the Democrats, in terms of campaigning? That is one of their main talking points against the Republicans. Why should the troops have to suffer so that the Dems can still rag on the Reps until after election time? So what if you give the Reps something positive to gloat about if all (most) of the troops are pulled, its about being objective on the situation.

This is what Im saying. It has political ramifications whichever way its worked.
Who would benefit from a withdrawl in the summer?
The Rep candidate, standing beside the Rep President claiming 'mission accomplished MK2' maybe.

The Dem candidate, 'something on the lines of 'its a bit premature to bring the boys home', maybe.

And I will say again, if the General thinks a certain amount of ground troops wont be needed after the summer, why are these troops not running down operations now, in anticipation of leaving?

They arent gonna wake up some day and say 'right we're out of here'.
The Iraqi police and security forces would need to be tested on their own for a set period of time before re-deployment of US Forces.

This is what Im saying. It has political ramifications whichever way its worked.
Who would benefit from a withdrawl in the summer?
The Rep candidate, standing beside the Rep President claiming 'mission accomplished MK2' maybe.

The Dem candidate, 'something on the lines of 'its a bit premature to bring the boys home', maybe.

And I will say again, if the General thinks a certain amount of ground troops wont be needed after the summer, why are these troops not running down operations now, in anticipation of leaving?

They arent gonna wake up some day and say 'right we're out of here'.
The Iraqi police and security forces would need to be tested on their own for a set period of time before re-deployment of US Forces.

How do you know they haven't stared winding down operations already? As far as I know, and I know lot's of people in Iraq, they are saying it's pretty damn easy over there these days, in terms of operations.

And the politics should have zip, zero, zilch, to do with whether troops are pulled or not. If you say it will have ramifications either way, then why not pull them if that's what the Generals want to do?

If operations had already begun to wind down the military presence it would have been all over the media by now.

You know as well as I do that high level military decisions always go hand in hand with political ones.

Iraq has the potential to either win or lose the White House, they sure arent gonna let something insignificant as military decisions get in the way of that.

The coincidence of it all is just too cosy. This smells of political manipulation even from my house.

This talk of "victory and defeat" only makes you sound out of touch.

We WON the "war" in Iraq years ago.

To claim we did not is a slap in the face of every soldier who served there and sacrificed for that victory.

Pass the message on to the democrats they seemed to have missed it.:rolleyes:

Because Phyrex Iraq is a main election topic in the Presidential race.
Any withdrawal of troops from Iraq would look very nice on the Republican candidates resume.
That said, why would they be removed from the nation at all, without confinement to base first, that makes no sense, putting them on the street [if need be] is faster, and more cost effective than a re-deployment.

If the General thinks troops could be going home by the summer, why is it that these troops arent confined to base now, to see how the Iraqis deal with security themselves.

The economy is the #1 concern in the election.

Rather than speaking to the political situation why not address the military situation. What is your basis, from a military perspective, for leaving more troops on the ground than the generals think are necessary?

Something more than broad possibilities.

Obama is not about to say publicly that he wants to leave the troops there, just in case.

btw, there are troops already in the process of winding up their operations in preparation for leaving. About a brigade a month currently.

The military situation in Iraq has changed in recent months.
Thanks to the surge no doubt.

Now we see less road side bombs, but more selective suicide bombs.

The US needs to keep a stratigic reserve inplace on base, for a period of time to see how the Iraqis deal with security on their own.

And if your correct and a Battilion a month are leaving, no doubt they are not being replaced, so why all the sudden rush to get out of Iraq during the summer, dont forget, your guys bust their chops to rush in,in the first place.

This is a political decision, nothing more.

And I will say again, if the General thinks a certain amount of ground troops wont be needed after the summer, why are these troops not running down operations now, in anticipation of leaving?

They arent gonna wake up some day and say 'right we're out of here'.
The Iraqi police and security forces would need to be tested on their own for a set period of time before re-deployment of US Forces.
It's not that US troops aren't needed at all, it's that less are needed. And if those particular units are being redeployed soon, I can assure you that they have been running down their operations.

It's also important to note that the situation is different in different parts of Iraq. Things have improved in Baghdad so troops are being withdrawn from there. However, the violence has increased in other places, so more troops have been sent as a result.

OK. Isnt it a bit hasty to suggest withdrawal then, these troops in and around Baghdad could simply be re-deployed to outlying provinces.
There has been a marked change in tactics by insurgency groups.
The Turkish/Kurdish situation isnt helping either.

If operations had already begun to wind down the military presence it would have been all over the media by now.

You know as well as I do that high level military decisions always go hand in hand with political ones.

Iraq has the potential to either win or lose the White House, they sure arent gonna let something insignificant as military decisions get in the way of that.

The coincidence of it all is just too cosy. This smells of political manipulation even from my house.


Actually, it has been all over the news. Don't you remember reading about the Brits leaving Basra? Haven't you read about Iraqi police and soldiers increasing their presence in various operations?

The news has been there, you seem to have simply chosen to ignore it.

Military progress. Political progress. Peace breaking out.

Let me see if I understand you here.

Are you saying you believe that "Peace is breaking out" in Iraq?

Actually, it has been all over the news. Don't you remember reading about the Brits leaving Basra? Haven't you read about Iraqi police and soldiers increasing their presence in various operations?

The news has been there, you seem to have simply chosen to ignore it.
No I didnt ignore it, in fact I commented on it at the time.

The Pentagon and Downing Street had a fall out over Basra, with the American side claiming the Britishers had 'cut and run'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/19/wiraq119.xml


As for Iraqi forces, well, after the disaster of erasing the original Iraqi police and internal security froces, the process of rebuilding them has/is a momentous task.
And as I said at the time, US forces were making a grave error by allowing 'private armies' such as the Mhedi Army to conduct policing operations, this I believe will eventually come back to haunt the US
and sepecially the Iraqi Forces.

So what your saying is,pull them before the election to deny the next President the choice any credit which may come from that, wheras pulling them before the election would be a major boost to McCain..

Not at all. I am saying pull the troops because they are not needed. Plain and simple..... your solution of keeping them there untill leadership abroad changes is insane. Leadership OVER THERE says they are not needed. End of story.

Let me see if I understand you here.Are you saying you believe that "Peace is breaking out" in Iraq?
I am saying there is progress every single day going forward for a long time. Even you cant deny that.

Damn...too bad you didn't leave this part out...you almost had me until you included this absurd nonsense.
I am not trying to win the masses over or anything. The truth is what it is. The usual suspects that came rushing to diagree with my thread ,prove my case hands down

This talk of "victory and defeat" only makes you sound out of touch.

We WON the "war" in Iraq years ago.

To claim we did not is a slap in the face of every soldier who served there and sacrificed for that victory.

To pack up and leave as soon as "mission accomplish" was announced would be much much more than a slap to the entire iraq population.

Originally Posted by Freethinker
Let me see if I understand you here. Are you saying you believe that "Peace is breaking out" in Iraq?

I am saying there is progress every single day going forward for a long time.

You seem to have misread the question.

Here it is once more.

Are you saying --per your previous post where you wrote ""Military progress. Political progress. Peace breaking out."" -- that you believe that "Peace is breaking out" in Iraq?

You seem to have misread the question.

Here it is once more.

Are you saying --per your previous post where you wrote ""Military progress. Political progress. Peace breaking out."" -- that you believe that "Peace is breaking out" in Iraq?
I guess it would depend on your definetions of peace breaking out.

To me peace isnt something like dance or laughter... it doesnt just fall out of the sky and posses you. Peace happens when there is hope and promise. Sometimes it gets very dark before the light can shine,and in Iraq the light is shining brighter every day. I would ask you what you would call it. But i dont want to hear about Bushco,the right wing cabal or the sheep.

Peace happens when there is hope and promise. Sometimes it gets very dark before the light can shine,and in Iraq the light is shining brighter every day. I would ask you what you would call it. But i dont want to hear about Bushco,the right wing cabal or the sheep.
Does it involve bunnies? I can't live without my bunnies. Sheep is fine, but it has to have bunnies, too!

I guess it would depend on your definetions of peace breaking out.....I would ask you what you would call it.

*peace* would be indicated by an end to hostilities and fighting.

peace (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=peace)

*peace* would be indicated by an end to hostilities and fighting.

peace (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=peace)
i guess that leaves out NY, LA, Detroit, STL, Flint, and almost every other U.S. city big enough to have 2 street gangs.

*peace* would be indicated by an end to hostilities and fighting.

peace (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=peace)

peace is also a way of thinking and living with tolerance... which is exactly what is changing in iraq on a steady basis. We dont live in a world where things of that complex nature happen over night.

peace is also a way of thinking and living with tolerance...

I see.

So you are of the belief that --""a way of thinking and living with tolerance is breaking out in Iraq".

Interesting assertion.

I am thinking a positive direction is finally happening in Iraq. Tolerance is a huge part of that.

Iam not going to sit here and spout praises about the war. I think alot of mistakes were made that got us in there and alot of mistakes were made while we were there.
I dont consider myself one of your "sheep" ..I wasn't tricked into thinking Iraq was a good idea. If we busted up a WMD program while we were there,to me that would be icing on the cake. We had plenty of good reasons to go there.
I know you believe Bush and company started an illegal war,and if there ever is a investigation or hearing (i doubt it) I would not only be for it,but watch with a open mind. However in the mean time there is a population of Iraq people that cannot fend for themselves politically or physically....
That is changing slowly...There is progress in Iraq.

There is progress in Iraq.

Maybe.

But given the level of violence that is still occurring over there, and given that we see it coming very close to a civil war being fought there as we speak, the assertion that --""a way of thinking and living with tolerance is breaking out in Iraq" -- is beyond ridiculous.

I invite you or anyone else to look back at Iraq a year from now..... or three years from now.....or ten years from now......or 50 years from now, and tell me if you believe that the Sunnis and the Shiites have begun 'thinking and living with tolerance' for one another.

Not at all. I am saying pull the troops because they are not needed. Plain and simple..... your solution of keeping them there untill leadership abroad changes is insane. Leadership OVER THERE says they are not needed. End of story.No LF, what Im saying is, that if the General considers the situation on the ground will be right for troop withdrawal by the summer, why are these troops not slowly being confined to base as of now, 3 months before the summer.

Theres no way that all of a sudden he's gonna say, ''right, I dont think we need these troops anymore, send them home now''.

Any major shift of troops between now and then would simply be a political gesture to help endorse the Republican candidate.

I invite you or anyone else to look back at Iraq a year from now..... or three years from now.....or ten years from now......or 50 years from now, and tell me if you believe that the Sunnis and the Shiites have begun 'thinking and living with tolerance' for one another.
There's no way of knowing what will happen in 50 years, but you're right in that peace between the two groups is unlikely in the near future. There's simply too much bad blood between them at this point. The only thing that would reduce the chances of conflict for the long term are political changes and reconciliation. However, the burden of that responsibility lies squarely with the Iraqis.

No LF, what Im saying is, that if the General considers the situation on the ground will be right for troop withdrawal by the summer, why are these troops not slowly being confined to base as of now, 3 months before the summer.

Theres no way that all of a sudden he's gonna say, ''right, I dont think we need these troops anymore, send them home now''.
I can't tell you this for sure since I'm not in Baghdad, but if those troops are no longer needed they're probably not doing much besides sitting on the base.

i guess that leaves out NY, LA, Detroit, STL, Flint, and almost every other U.S. city big enough to have 2 street gangs.

Exactly, so why should we have to stay in Iraq until all crime ends?

It never will.

The Administration [whoever it may be] has a responsibility to stay until security is good enough to slowly leave. Surely they owe that to the Iraqi people if no one else.

The Administration [whoever it may be] has a responsibility to stay until security is good enough to slowly leave. Surely they owe that to the Iraqi people if no one else.
that's been my position, it's McCain's position, and if you listen closely, it's Obama & Shillary's too!:rolleyes:

that's been my position, it's McCain's position, and if you listen closely, it's Obama & Shillary's too!:rolleyes:
You were doing ok until you got to 'Shillary'.
Really. I think youll find that they interpret 'security' in their own specific way.

Exactly, so why should we have to stay in Iraq until all crime ends?

It never will.
not that long, just until the car bombs and mass executions end. and if gang violence here ever escalates to car bombs, torture houses, and mass murder, i fully expect to see tanks on our streets.

You were doing ok until you got to 'Shillary'.
Really. I think youll find that they interpret 'security' in their own specific way.
sorry, the woman has grated at me since 1992. i could deal with a President Obama, but i've still got relatives in the old country if it gets real bad.

it's more about what's an acceptable level of non-peace. Sunni and Shiite mullahs inviting each other to their kids weddings would be nice, but i'd settle for not trying to behead each other.

sorry, the woman has grated at me since 1992. i could deal with a President Obama, but i've still got relatives in the old country if it gets real bad. Where would that be ?

it's more about what's an acceptable level of non-peace. Sunni and Shiite mullahs inviting each other to their kids weddings would be nice, but i'd settle for not trying to behead each other.

Sure, in the perfect world and all. Odd thing is, good old Saddam for all his faults, put the fear of god into them all, and kept them in line.

We see the same thing happening in Yugoslavia after Tito.

If Iraq survives this intact, I will be very surprised.