Tom
Look. I opposed the war in Iraq for two reasons.
1 Saddam was not in conivance with Al Queda, he did not have WMD, as Bush the elder's containment plan was working fine, and the country is a freaking basket case made up Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites, all of whom hate each other, and if we invaded this would become our problem with little support from any other nation. I think I was right.
2 We weren't finished with the job in Afghanistan and had barely driven the Taliban out and not yet secured the nation to prevent their return. Again, I think I was right.
The thing is if the only thing holding Iraq toghether is American soldiers, at some point we have to say "who cares". We can't stay there forever. The Iraqis will have to either:
1 Get their act toghether
2 Agree on partition
3 Decend into a Balkan style civil war that will end when either one side wins, or they get tired of killing each other.
Whichever they choose, at some point it has to be their choice and no longer our problem, to the tune of billions a year and not enough forces to deal with Iran and North Korea. (The two members of the axis of evil that actually DO have WMDs, not to mention Pakistan). Sorry Tom, but there are only so many king's horses and so many king's men. King George didn't have enough to fight forever, and neither does the Boy King. It is time to test the Iraqi government while we still have troops there. We can always go back in. But until we withdraw, rest, resupply and retrain, Iran and North Korea know we can't do much. Therefore best to turn it over to Iraqi's as soon as we responsibly can.
FQ13
In other words you ignorance led you to buy the liberal bullshit. (_?_)
1 Saddam was not in conivance with Al Queda, Wrong. Actually they WERE, this has been borne out by interrogations of both Al Queda AND Iraqi officials, (Will have to check library for reference)
he did not have WMD, Wrong again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk What pray tell do you think killed those Kurds that "Chemical Ali" got hung for ? Camel farts ? There was a report that even made CNN in the spring of 04 about 4 US Soldiers who tripped a chemical 155mm shell rigged as a booby trap, they were only lightly contaminated as chemical shells don't work that way, they depend on altitude to disperse the agent. Where do you think Syria got the Nuke tech that the Israeli's raided a while back ? Oh I know, Ali Baba dropped it off with his flying carpet, right ?
Bush the elder's containment plan was working fine, Three strikes in your first item

Oh yeah, it worked so good that even BJ had to take military action, this is such a stupid comment I will just refer you to the above video and tell you to LOOK at the dates.
with little support from any other nation. I think I was right. There were nearly 40 countries that participated,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Force_-_Iraq Hell, even Tonga sent troops. You think you were right ? I think if one of your students turned in such piss pure research you would them. Your total ignorance shows an abject failure to perform the slightest "due diligence" research.
The thing is if the only thing holding Iraq toghether is American soldiers, at some point we have to say "who cares". We can't stay there forever. The Iraqis will have to either:
1 Get their act toghether
2 Agree on partition
3 Decend into a Balkan style civil war that will end when either one side wins, or they get tired of killing each other. We have kept troops in Korea for over 50 years, these people have no experience with representative Govt. and need help to set up and maintain one, That takes time, and the cowardly "Monty Python approach" (Run away ! Run away ! ) only guarantees failure.
Sorry Tom, but there are only so many king's horses and so many king's men. Of course that's no fault of the Democrats, and has NOTHING to do with their constant demands to cut Defense spending so they can buy more welfare votes.
We can always go back in. Riiight, Just like we promised the South Vietnamese we would ? Right up until 75 when the Dems hung them out to dry ?
King George didn't have enough to fight forever, and neither does the Boy King. It's not troops that King Barry the Bastard is lacking, just balls.
Didn't you pay attention to ANY of the history you studied ? Or did you just memorize names and dates to regurgitate back on tests ?