Few See an End in Sight to Iraq War

[Hissyspit]

Source: Associated Press

Few see an end in sight to Iraq war
By ERIN McCLAM, AP National Writer

Outside a Brooklyn art gallery, Kristy Knight threw her arms in the air in exasperation when she was asked about the war in Iraq, which has her angry, frustrated and flatly disbelieving President Bush. Across the country, as he finished off a cup of coffee in Grants Pass, Ore., Gerald Fitzgerald insisted the only way the United States should leave Iraq is with victory — no "cutting and running or bailing or anything else."

But when Knight gave her forecast for the war, she could have been speaking for either of them: "I don't think it's ending anytime soon."

- snip -

And in a way, they have, if interviews scattered around the nation after the speech are any indication: Americans expect a large U.S. presence in Iraq for years to come, including well after Bush leaves office in January 2009.

They still disagree passionately about whether the war was a good idea to begin with, and whether, as the president insists, maintaining it will ultimately make the United States safer. But few appear to think an end is in sight.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070915/ap_on_re_us/iraq_no_end_in_sight

[Kagemusha]

1. Bush's done what he aimed to do. He sucked up all hope of change.

Now everyone knows that barring some miracle, barring something so unlikely as to be laughable, we're stuck with this, the Republicans are stuck with this, the Democrats are stuck with this, Americans are stuck with this, the world is stuck with this.

And all we can do is cross our fingers and hope Iran isn't the next step.

[Baby Snooks]

2. The war, maybe. The occupation, never.

Reality is the Bushes have made enemies of our friends in the region and so the only place left for the Bushes is Iraq and so there will be a military base there to make up for ones we no longer have in the region. To protect our national interests, of course. Which the Democrats seem willing to protect as well. Gotta keep the gas tanks on those old Hummers filled for the weekends at the beach. Oil is definitely a national interest. Just not sure it was worth millions of lives in Iran and Iraq all these years.

According to Madeline Albright, it was. Something wrong with her comment. Something wrong with all of it.

[Kagemusha]

3. Albright renounced that line years later.

I have to mention it, because I've spoken ill of her for years because of what she had said about it, so I have to recognize that she did, eventually, say she had made a mistake to say it like that.

Here's the thing. There's not much oil actually coming out of Iraq anyway. I know they think more will come out in the future but, it's pretty bad at this actual moment. Oil's also no reason to antagonize Iran. Oil was cheap before we went to depose Saddam. It's not the only interest these people have.

[Baby Snooks]

6. Renounced it?

She only renounced it when some took offense to it. She still said it. And still meant it.

[Kagemusha]

7. I know, all I said was that she renounced it later. Years later.

That's as fair as I can possibly be to her.

[old guy]

4. So does Mr. Fitzgerald intend to enlist ?

Is Mr. Fitzgerald going to accept an occupation force there for another 5 years,or 10,or 20 years? I suppose he will accept this as long as he takes no part personally. He should crawl back into whatever disgusting hole he came out from. Just saying.

[Hissyspit]

5. That was my first reaction. Even without knowing how old he is.

Doesn't matter. He should sign up or shut up.

[Alcibiades]

9. And even if he is old, he can still work in Iraq

Lots of contracting jobs over there, you know. Some of them pay pretty good, too.

So, right-wing nutjobs, this is your chance! Are you with the President, or do you want him to fail? Go over and make a contribution personally to help Bush win his occupation! Until you all unite in this effort, if the true believers in Bush's massive social and political experiment in the Middle East won't put their money where their mouths are, why should those of us who have been critical since the beginning go along in any way?

[Baby Snooks]

8. Putting Iraq into the proper prospective

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8380134269143423893

This is part four of a series titled "From Persia to Iran" although this part should be titled "From 9/11 to Armaggedon."

Notice that some Iranians refer to Ahmadinejad as Hitler. The way some Americans refer to Bush as Hitler.

To put Iraq, and everything else including Iran, into proper perspective one need only look at the history of the Bush family from World War II to today. Including what became, really, the personal CIA of the Bushes and one need only to look even further, or perhaps more closely, to realize that Ayatollah Khomeini was merely another puppet in the Bush "install a friendly dictator" program to truly put it all into proper perspective and the only thing you need to look at to realize that is to look at Iran-Contra. Part of the Bush deal with Khomeini. Before he left Paris. Not after he returned to Tehran. Truly a deal with the devil.

The war may end. Our occupation will not. Our enemies are still our enemies. Despite the deals. And the Bushes are perhaps the worst of our enemies. Divide and conquer. They have divided too much and have created a new political reality in the world that they cannot control. That reality is al Queda. Which owes no loyalty to anyone.

The Islamic fundamentalism of al Queda has given rise to an equally dangerous fundamentalism in Judaism and in Christianity and as Christiane Amanpour indicated in her recent CNN special "God's Warriors" all three religions, particularly the fundamentalists, believe their mythical messiah will come only through Armaggedon.

And so we are most likely headed for Armaggedon.

But there is also a second political reality that the Bushes cannot control. Look closely at the shots of Putin with Bush and the shots of Putin with Ahmadinejad. Putin does not believe in a mythical messiah. And he, like al Queda, owes no loyalty to anyone. First us, perhaps, then everyone else.

The Bushes are insane if nothing else. And have created an insane world.

And still Madame Speaker keeps impeachment off the table. Afraid of not having enough votes or afraid of the American people realizing the duplicity of both Democrats and Republicans in the insanity?

[mainer]

10. How many US casualties are they willing to take?

I haven't heard anyone ask the war supporters that question. Their general response is: "We stay until we finish it. Whatever it takes." I want to know if they have a limit to "whatever it takes."

Are they willing to let 10,000 American soldiers die? 50,000? 100,000?
How much money are they willing to spend? A trillion? Two trillion?

There are times when I want to just spew their words back at them and say, "Yes! Whatever it takes! Whether it's a million dead soldiers! Whether it's our entire Gross National Product! We HAVE to win because even if it destroys us as a nation, we can't be seen as cowards!"

I wonder what their response to that would be.