__________________
mailto:admin@politicalinformer.com

http://www.politicalinformer.com

While "lost" might not be the right word, I think Democrats' idea that we're losing the war, or not attaining our goal, is accurate: the U.S. is creating more terrorists, as reported, rather than significantly decreasing terrorism. Overall, there's a dislike/mistrust/hate towards the U.S. that is getting stronger because of our presence there.

However, there are people that genuinely just hate the U.S. for what we are, and we need to be aware of that. However, some of those people are Saudis, and yet our president remains friends with their King.

The article mentions Al-Qaeda in Iraq a lot...I thought there was a lot of fighting between the Shiites and Sunnis, hence the term "civil war"? We can't win if those 2 groups continue to hate each other...and to my understanding, being a Shiites or Sunni doesn't make you Al Qaeda. Democracy is great and all, but it's not destined to work everywhere, and some people might argue that their country would work better with a different form of government. Staying there just to force them to live how we want them to doesn't make much sense if no one there likes the idea.

Saying that the U.S. gave Saddam "ample time" and that Bush "reluctantly was drawn to conflict" is an embarrassment to how history actually happened. There have been many documented sources saying that Bush and Cheney were concerned with Iraq as soon as they took office, noticeably wanting as much information about that particular country in their briefings. The Downing Street memo and other documents prove that Bush was hell-bent on fixing the facts around his plan to go to war. He was determined much earlier than he pretends he was.

"Can any objective onlooker really believe such a mammoth mission would be accomplished without its trials and tribulations? " Shouldn't our President have known, or atleast planned for, the possibility of trials and tribulations? Because he didn't; he thought it would be easy. The person this article is defending is, in fact, guilty of this...of believing his 'mammoth mission' would be accomplished without trials and tribulations.

Then the article goes back to 9/11 and tries to invoke emotions from that. Okay, but why are Saudis being more actively pursued? I understand that those 15 of 17 hiijackers belonged to a terrorist group, but the fact that that many were from Saudi Arabia? The country that don't like us "infidels" coming into their kingdom? And we're not going after them? That doesn't make much sense to me. But you're right, it couldn't possibly be because of the oil. I mean Saudi Arabia gives us oil, Iraq hated us and sat on some of the world's largest reserves. Why would that be a reason? It's not like we're driven by money and need to have a good economy.

"one can only imagine the sense of responsibility that this President must carry as a decent man attempting to bring about a successful conclusion to this war." He doesn't want to end the war. Have you seen the sketches for our permanent U.S. bases in Iraq? Years and years and years. This article is so unbelievably biased in defending a president who has, himself, said that the troops won't be out before he's out of office.

Which brings me to the point of a time table...I understand not wanting to tell the enemy when we're leaving the country...but then how could we ever leave? Regardless of whether we tell them or not...one day they would notice that there are no more American soldiers and they can once again do whatever they what. The argument that we can't set a plan for withdrawal is BS and doesn't hold up.

I don't really have time to keep reading that article...I got about halfway through, but I thought I'd start the discussion. In summary, I don't think pulling out of Iraq means that we want to lose...the Democrats just think differently than the Republicans. They're concerned for the hatred we're stirring up against ourselves. They're concerned that we're giving fuel to the terrorists to say "hey...join us, don't you see what the Americans are doing? they're trying to take over this country...they think they can do whatever they want." That part of the world has been full of fighting for a long long time. To think we can stop it, and should waste our soldiers' lives doing so, is kindof dumb to me.

__________________
http://www.myspace.com/onecubicleover

I just want to comment on 2 things you brought up. The rest of your response is goof for a later discussion.

1. There are al-Qaeda forces here. I work with them every day. They are not insurgents, and they are not civil war fighters. They are Sunni Arabs who decided that the run-of-the-mill insurgent militia was just too 'soft' for them. They are the ones who blow up Mosques (on both sides), they are the ones who specifically assassinate religious leaders, diplomats (From other nations and from Iraq), and they are the ones who target children and schools. Just 2 weeks ago, al-Qaeda forces here demolished a brand new school that was set to open this month to give over 700 students a formal education.

The Sunni vs. Shi'a fighting is mostly targets of opportunity among the militias. But what you won't hear on CNN or really anywhere else is that there are more Sunni and Shi'a tribes working together than ever before in Iraq. There are actually mixed militia units (think community watch) where a Sheikh from a Sunni tribe and a Sheikh from a Shi'a tribe donate their fighters to a joint unit. That joint unit runs patrols and checkpoints to ensure no insurgent or al-Qaeda forces can come into their community and disrupt the peace.

2. Democracy is working her, and they do want it. I have spoken with and worked with Iraqis as low down on the totem pole as the guys who mix cement to rebuild things around the country, and the guys who pickup trash...all the way up to ministers and military leaders in the government (and everyone in between). They understand the concept of freedom and rule-of-law. They are just trying to work out the details of democracy as it works for Iraqis.

The big difference is Islam. In America (and European democracies), we separate church and state. Even though our elected officials bring their morals and values from whatever religious background they have, they try and keep those things separate from legislation and how they run things. In Islam, the Koran teaches that politicians are only given as much power as Allah will allow them, and Allah and Muhammad dictate how things are governed. Church and State are one in the same in the Middle East. That is why we work a lot with the Sheikhs and religious leaders here. If they are happy, and the politicians are happy...then the people are happy and things fall into place.

Shi’a, Sunnis, and Kurds don't hate each other...and in fact they intermarry and live together quite a lot over here. It was al-Qaeda who started destroying mosques and killing in sectarian areas under the guise of the opposing group. That is what started a lot of the animosity over here...not all of it, but a lot of it.

Things can work out here, and must work out here. As far as timelines and politics back home, I really don't care what is decided. I obey whatever my elected officials tell me to. But Iraq needs help and they need guidance. I do hope that they figure things out sooner rather than later, but they need help all the same.

so basically whatever officials in the administration that said it was a civil war said that because they were fooled to think that these al qaeda members were actually sunnis or shiites? and nobody has made an announcement on the media since? that's pretty messed up if that's the case, otherwise, i missed something.

you should probably mention that you're serving over there, because for the first couple sentences, i thought you were in the U.S. and should be notifying someone that they work in your office.

i appreciate your response seeing as how you have a first hand account, except maybe the part about my response being a "goof." I don't see how responding to the ridiculous bias of that article is "goofing." To act like Bush has done everything completely perfect isn't journalism, it's a propaganda piece. Are the 20-some, or however many, retired generals who disagree with Bush "goofs"?

However, it was nice to hear a more intellectual response from a soldier (or whatever you do) in Iraq. I knew a couple kids from my high school who went over there, and all i heard them talk about was how pumped they were to kill some 'sand niggers' or 'towel heads'. they seemed totally brainwashed from how i knew them before.

__________________
http://www.myspace.com/onecubicleover

I meant to type 'good' not ‘goof’ I should have done a better job of proof reading. I meant the rest of your response would be good for a later debate. Sorry.

I don't think the current administration is perfect or infallible, but I do think it deserves more credit than it's given.

There is a real civil struggle here between the Sunnis and Shi'a. It just isn't this vast civil war that is portrayed in the media. Most of the large-scale attacks are carried out by al-Qaeda. The struggle between the Sunnis and Shi'a is more like a, "hey we just passed a group of Sunnis, let's go shoot them." Not a tactically planned out war encompassing the entire country.

There are vast parts of Iraq that enjoy relative peace and quite. Baghdad, and the surrounding areas, and Mosul (up north) are the real problem spots. Everything else is either quiet or sporadic fighting too rare to really make an impact on the chain of events here.