Iraq Conflict enters Fifth Year

And how many years have we been in other countries such as Germany, South Korea, etc.
My problem with this is people are consistantly inconsistant on this topic.
It was ok and still is ok to be in those countries because they supported the
war and the president.

I now like you think Iraq was a wasn't such a good idea but we are there and
I want to win even if it means elimination of Iraq, Iran, Syria and Pakistan off
the face of the earth.
Instead of fighting this for the next 50 years I would rather get it over with in 50 minutes.
I STILL don't like or trust polls from either side because you can always insert
a word here or there and get the results you want to get.
I would like a simple, not so hard question to understand to be asked.
How many people want to lose in Iraq and how many people want to win.
That is the only questions needing answered.

Once again, the American people elect leaders and not followers so it doesn't
matter what the American people think ESPECIALLY in this situation since Bush can't be re-elected.
Bush will have nothing to do with the 2008 election, it will be about everything but him unless the Dems use politics of personal destruction.
Once again we should all be focusing on our heros being the troops and the
enemy terrorists throughout the world, punishing, killing them instead of giving them special rights or rights Americans have.

 

Don't think this is true. If Bush were running again, the Republicans would lose (I hope). But if it's Giuliani or McCain against Obama (or heaven forbid, Hilary), I think the republicans have a good chance of winning.

Many people probably still aren't ready for a woman or black man to be president. That's the ignorant vote. Then there's the die-hard republicans that won't vote democrat, some of whom think Bush is great. Then there are the folks who think Obama is too young or Clinton is too political. Then the undecideds who are won over by McCain or Giuliani.

I don't know much about McCain or Giuliani, but I still think Obama would be good. Giuiliani doesn't impress my gut, but he seems like a pretty good choice for the republicans considering how McCain's age will be used against him. I think it will be hard for Obama to defeat Giuliani.

 

I'm completely dumbfounded at the fact that there are that many people who take Hillary seriously as a candidate.

 

I want to agree with you here.
Obama came from nowhere and is giving her a genuine challenge.
I don't think she has a chance without the Clinton war machine attacking others.
The only way she looks good is the politics of personal destruction.
You have to consider that the Clinton's and their war room will do anything to win and not to lose.

I still don't think she has that much of a chance to win.
I don't see her getting enough states to carry her, popular vote could be different so thank god the founding fathers where smart enough to have
a republic and not a democracy.

 

We haven't lost 3000 plus troops keeping the Lutherens from blowing up the Catholics and vice versa in Germany. We aren't in most countries where we have bases as an occupying force. We are there through mutual consent and for strategic value. What strategic value does Iraq hold?

We could wipe all those arab countries away with the push of a button, but that would not constitute winning when considering the objectives we went into Iraq with. What is clear is that we do not win by babysitting a civil war, spending billions of dollars, and loosing the lives of our bravest.

Thats hogwash. We aren't electing dictators to order us around. We elect representatives. They are accountable to us regardless of a term limit.

The failed policies of George Bush will be the center of the 08 elections.

 

Sorry,
I'm not interested in anything you have to say.
You can only answer questions with questions.
No Comments...

 

Black Gold. Texas Tea.

 

When you can define what constitutes winning in Iraq I'll answer.