In contrast, the war in Iraq was a war of choice for which we had plenty of time to prepare. Rather than being called to a common sacrifice, the American public was told to “go shopping”. Taxes were not raised and money was borrowed from Japan, China and other foreign powers to finance the war. The American people had and have no emotional investment in this war and the only ones doing any sacrificing are our brave servicemen and women and their families and friends.

A nation or a people are drawn together by common sacrifices. When everyone is seen to be sacrificing it makes the individual more likely to accept those sacrifices. GW Bush has never called on the American people to sacrifice in any way, that is why most of us are apathetic and disconnected from the sacrifices our military is suffering in our name.

I was equally confused by why, with nothing between US tanks and Baghdad, Bush 41 decided to pull the plug. I was still thrilled to have won. You could have seen me on CNN that night leading a standing ovation when the President declared victory.

I understand now that Bush 41 was right not to invade or occupy Iraq. Nobody ever wins an insurgency. Ever. That's why we could win every standup fight in Vietnam and still eventually lose. And you're wrong about that, too. We never broke the back of the Viet Cong. They were in Siagon before we were out of it. Really they were in Siagon the whole time.

And Everybody was wrong about the domino theory, too. Vietnam fell to the communists. 20 years later the Soviet Union, not the United States fell and Viet Nam became a major manufacturing center for textiles and Running shoes. Becasue Viet Nam didn't fall to "the communists", it fell to it's own people. It's likely that the same will happen after we leave Iraq. The current histerical nonsense about the war coming over here if we leave is just as wrong as the domino theory. There will or will not be another major terrorist attack on US soil irrespective of what we do in Iraq. All that war is doing is keeping us from expending resources to prepare for or prevent it.

Your comparison to WWII isn't very accurate, either. Both the Japanese and the Germans had been draged into one military adventure after another by their leaders for a whole generation. It had, in both cases lead to natonal ruin and wide spread starvation by the end of the war. Iraq, even under the sanctions imposed for all of the 1990s, was more prosperous and it's people were more secure than today. In Germany and Japan in the 40s we made things better for the common people. In Iraq we've only made things worse. That's how you build an insurgency.

Maybe, if Bush 43 had asked for and congress had given him a draft and a large enough Army and Marine Corps to field the half million men for the 2-3 years that it was going to take back in 2003 then we could have "won". It's too late to even talk about that kind of force now. It takes over a year to recriut, train and field a new division. We need about 12. And from the moment the first Soldier crossed the line we had about 6 months to restore order before we were fighting the Iraqi people for their own country. After that, we were, and are now, in a no win situation.

I think you're being way to hard on your cat. I place a high value on my mouser. He keeps the vermin out of my house and the moles out of my garden. Maybe the whitehouse needs a good mouser.

I think your brutality solution would backfire. how many mistakes on the part of u.s. service members would it take for Iraqis to really resent us and not trust us? probably only one well publicized incident.

the germany and japan analogies are not good at all for a lot of reasons, the main one being that we were fighting against actual armies which we could crush with raw power, and we had very little concern for human, civilian casualties, as underscored by the fact that we used two atomic bombs in Japan. we then actually occupied japan. presumably, we are not trying to do either of those things in Iraq. also, the differences between the nations of germany and japan at the time of world war II, and modern Iraq are so disparate as to make meaningless any real comparison in terms of the efficacy of our rebuilding efforts (sectarianism being the primary one, and that germany and japan thought of themselves as nations at the time of WWII, whereas Iraq was mainly a couintry held together by a strong man- very different cultures). One size does not fit all.

I do not want to get into a discussion of viet nam, as that will get very off topic. however, my main point will be that you continue to propose a military solution for a non-military problem. you seem to be saying that we need to more brutal against myriad enemies, many of which we don;t know whose side they are on (which is made more difficult due to the fact there do not seem to be clearly defined sides, and there appear to be more than two), and that while we are brutalizing the iraqis, other iraqis who are working with us, will then be trusted as the authorities. I just don;t see this working in reality.

i don;t think your view is stupid, or anything like that, and i believe that people with your view point actually do want what's best for the iraqis. however, a strategy of exorcising our personal demons over viet nam by "staying the course" is not the solution which i find viable or realisitic. it is a military solution, to a non-military problem. there needs to be a military aspect, but the longer we stay, the more we will be resented. again, that doesn't mean pull out tomorrow, but it also doesn;t mean stay indefintiely or "as long as it takes." if we are still there, iraqis will not be in charge. i realize this is kind of a catch-22, but one day we are going to leaVE, AND THEN THE CHIPS ARE GOING TO FALL WHERE THEY MAY. THE ONLY REAL QUESTION IS WHEN DO WE DO THIS, AND I AM PRETTY CERTAIN IT IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE A GAMBLE, AS I DON;T SEE THE us BEING SEEN AS A FORCE FOR GOOD IN THE me FOR A long, long TIME. (sorry caps lock on by mistake).

p.s. i was not calling us colonizers, but meaning we run the risk of being perceived as coloniozers by people in iraq. whether or not that is the case, if that becomes the perception by iraqis, it may as well be true as far as our goals are concerned, and the willingness of iraqis to work with us.

He said Saddam wouldn't let the WMD inspectors in. Wrong (a.k.a a lie).

Unless you're saying Bush isn't smart enough to know the difference between right and wrong, therefore its not a lie. Is that the arguement?