imo .. we can’t get out fast enough .. we should have been gone long ago .. but imo.. it would be stupid to remain “in country” when all our remaining forces have to “pull out of the towns and cities” .. which would mean we withdraw to enclaves .. leaving our men and women as sitting ducks ..

let’s bring ‘em home .. quick n’ easy ..

Well, just as Bush set it up - we get out when we are done with the job.

16 monthish is the keyish - wish i could read a transcript for the press announcement so i could highlight the ish

As far as sitting ducks, in the towns and cities we are way more sitting ducks than in compounds in the countryside, but attackerman would know this better than i - he has been there

The Kurds are already very, very thankful of our/Bush’s actions, one day all will be. In fact - most in Iraq are today.

They will end up like germany, japan, korea where we came, fought and stabilized, not like vietnam where the Vietnamese were not up to the fight to win their own country and have slide down to the depths of human existence since we left

the only difference is in a coupla of words, not any reality. Obama did not wave a magic wand to put us in the position of being able to leave, Bush did and now you want to give credit to obama for the surge, which he was against and the idea of paying the out of work Iraquis who were becoming terrorists out of frustration of not having a life.

Dust - YES. ISH.

i will bet anyone a billion icelandic kronur US combat troops are still in iraq 16 months and 1 day from now. make that a bAZillion.

Well, US troops are in the United Kingdom, but they’re not manning checkpoints or shooting people, so I won’t make any bets that are contignent on just the presence of US troops.

I will say that, once we’re gone from Iraq, we’re gone. Nobody aside from Chalabi and maybe the Kurds want us there and once the withdrawal starts in earnest (Gates has already been gearing up to get us out of Iraq’s cities even before the SOFA was signed) we won’t have enough troops to hold onto even the super-bases like Balad. As Steve Gilliard predicted before he died, Moqtada al-Sadr will be drinking coffee at the Balad Starbucks, whether the PNAC Platoon likes it or not.

Now the real interesting point

From Obamas words, he seems to say that we will invade Pakistan to find bin lawdin, excuse the spelling.

He seems to have promised that he will find him and go wherever needed.

The future will be interesting, doves think they elected a dove.

I just hope he is not the continual embarrassment that Clinton was, firing off a few rockets every time his despicable behavior was in the news and not going after those that invaded US territory, bombing embassies. I was embarrassed to be an American with him as president, lets hope that Obamas behavior is good in private matters and strong in public matters.

Ummm . . . I am not sure, but I suspect you are misquoting Obama.

Near as I can tell, at least, as you cover yourself with that “seems to say” phrase that gives you all sort of wiggle room to just get comfortable.

Try this: Dust “seems to say that the only good A-rab is a dead A-rab”.

Nice, huh?

Now, what I have heard Obama say is that he will put a focus on finding those responsible for attacking us on September 11, 2001 - including UBL. Obama has implicitly and explicitly criticized GWB for taking his eyes off of bin Laden and al Qaida, to pursue dreams of a “transformed” Middle East, led by a democratic Iraq. I have heard Obama say that he will not make that same mistake and that he will increase our efforts to find bin Laden and his cohorts - up to and including acting on all reasonable intelligence as to his whereabouts.

And I have heard him say that if that intelligence points to a location inside of Pakistan and the Pakistani government is unwilling or unable to act, we will act.