The dangerous area of the middle East should be kept free and clean of all nuclear weapons. Israel,who threatens all its neighbors and occupies their land by military force, was the first country to build its own nuclear arsenal. Consequently Iran and most likely other neighboring coutries feel threatened by the Israeli nuclear power and they will definitely try to offset it by building their own.The only way to keep this area clean of any nuclear weapons is to disband and remove the Israeli nuclear arsenal first.Otherwise it would be the utmost hypocrisy to turn a blind eye to the Israeli nuclear program and at the same time stop others from doing the same to defend themselves.

So what are the whiners gonna cry about when we win in Iraq? jeez, I look forward to all these baby boomers dropping off.

b4huxley:
It's truly amazing how completely some people can be fooled. We keep turning on the lights, and you keep closing your eyes.

Wow, that last comment was one of the lengthiest and most daunting collections of non sequiturs, ad hominems, and strawmen that I have read in a long time. In short, it is a monument to bad logic. Kudos, b4huxley!

Wow, once more I am impressed by the ignorance of American civillians. As if a stategic position in the middle east could never benefit us. Being allies with an oil gold mine could never help the US. The success of democracy in an islamic state is impossible. You know the same things were said about Japan and Germany look at them now. They are our staunch allies and both of them are democratic countries. Look at the price that oil is at right now, you had better hope that we succeed in Iraq because if not you can kiss the American life style good bye. This war is a much broader issue than you can realise. I would reccommend you start by researching COIN, then lawrence of arabia, the occupation of Germany Japan and South Korea, the rising prices of fossil fuels and their availability, islamic religion culture history and life style, along with military doctrine and operations in Iraq, before you can even begin understanding any of this. I forgot you wont do that you just parrot what ever you here on the radio and news. God forbid americans actually try to learn anything of value, that requires work and oh no, thinking. No unless your opinions are spoon fed to you out of a little gerber jar you could never accept them even if they are true. What ever is easy convenient and suits your purpose right, it's the new american way. If everyone would stop protesting and join the war effort our military wouldn't be so overstressed, guys like me would get a little more time with our families. You guys make me sick, you probably haven't spent a single day in the desert yet you blow your little toy bugle like you have any clue what is going on. Well the people who are fighting the war are sick of it, we are doing everything we can and our country sits back and nit picks everything. If you think it's that bad then enlist God knows we need more soldiers. I could always use another hand out here, no takers, thats what I thought. Americans now a days would have rolled over and died in the revolutionary war, no values no patriotism. The new America land of the cowardly.

Rev writes:"Someday along with the Amerasian babies from the post-Vietnam era, there will be a bunch of Amerislamic babies running around!"

yo rev, why do you leftists always day dream about Vietnam ?, what happened in Korea, Germany and Japan during there US occupation ?

I dont think those left of center, MoveOn or Koz get it. The American people do, that's why we are still in Iraq. Finally even some Dem's understand that the shrill voices on the left are basically a disposable minority to be kept at a distance.If the Dem's want to win , they will keep people like Murtha, Cindy Sheehan, Koz and other radioactive leftists hidden in the back room. Thankfully most Americans know better.

As an Iraqi let me tell you that we will never accept US occupation. The resistance will continue. Just as it would if we occupied your country. We live there, we can afford to play the long game.

Winning with the military has never been much of an issue -- we might or we might not. The real issue is: . . Why are we spending so much money, lives, and exhausting our military in order to give Iran an ally???! . . . . duh

Yes, there has been some bad blood between Iran and Iraq, but not enough to overcome the Shiite bond that exist between them. They will become allies. . . . .

"We are winning in Iraq, so eat it, all you anti-war whiners."
--Che

Che--
Yes, we are "winning" -- winning so well that the U.S. Army is broken. The only way that Shrub's (A.K.A. Bush II) escalation can continue to work will be to extend the Iraqi tours indefinitely. How much do you want to bet that Shrub will extend the tours through January '09 and leave this mess in his successor's lap to deal with?

The Rev does not mean to consume so much space, however...

I had an epiphany, rather than continuing business as usual, that is the investment of hard-earned American dollars in internecine wars, and the hostile take-overs and policing of other nations on planet Earth;

Seriously, why can't we simply invest more of the American dollar and begin a serious move towards the colonization of space, let's say by 2010.

Now the Rev, rappers, black leaders, illegal aliens and a few others probably won't be invited along - I'm certain, however, wouldn't an investment in space travel and the patriation (Canadian term) of some other planet in space be a wiser use of our time and money.

I do not see the end of bloodshed on earth for some time to come now!

Answer: A Tertiary occupation, or Guess Whose Staying for Dinner!

Question: What do you call an occupation that was superceded by an invasion, and a previous occupation?

Poor Saddam, why did he ever hold American citizens hostage, and parade them on Iraqi TV? Well, in fairness he referred to them as 'guests'.

Iraq will learn the real meaning of having stay-over house guests for some time to come!

We will, more than likely, be discussing the stay-over in Iraq of the American guest troops during the Thanksgiving Holiday in 2008!

Or will we also be dining will Mushareff!

If our military troops all left Iraq today, who would be in charge? Would it be the Iraqi army, the militias, or the 100,000 strong corporate armies? Maybe it's time to ask if the private armies are helping our troops, or if our troops are helping the private armies? I have no doubt about which one is true. What the private armies are trying to accomplish might be the most important question of all.

Aside from the jab about 'nit-picking', Arkin is on target, and realistic.

How do we square this realistic view with the news of a plan for permanent US bases in Iraq?

Who is going to raise taxes to pay for the occupation?

How will the US armed forces maintain readiness for other military emergencies?

Moktada al-Sadr and some of our other 'allies' in Iraq seem to have backed off because they view the US as a transient presence. If the US army is committed on one side of the multi-sided conflict, what stops us from again coming under intensified attack?

Will unlimited commitment make us more secure, or make us poorer, bleed our army of recruits with more options, and serve as a perpetual recruiting tool for terrorists?

Altec writes:The American occupation of Iraq is very similar to the U.S. occupations of Cuba and the Philippines in the late 19th century. Same kind of imperialist exploitation, though perhaps not quite so brutal.

-why not Germany, Japan and Korea in the 20th century ?

"Anti-war and anti-Bush types have responded to the good news with denial and nit-picking,"
The good news, as the Rev says, is al-Sadr's cease-fire.
The denial is believing the numbers of dead, wounded and (massaged) re-settled Iraqis, as Murtha quizzes, "You believe the Pentagon...?".
Okay, so I'm nit-picking, about the under-reported brain injuries to our troops.

"But we should be realistic about what is possible."
Can anyone tell me it will be better when we leave in ten years or fifty?

Like having common sense automatically makes one anti-Bush(You know that lights me off)?

A window of opportunity has been opened for the withdrawal of all USA soldiers because of the decline in violence. If that opportunity is not accepted and we let it be known that we are staying for a long time then the violence will increase. Our military won the war when they entered Baghdad and the CPA and incompetents in the Bush/Cheney mis-administration set in motion the political defeat, which still continues today.

Hmm, Arkin seems to be a bit contradictory, claiming that only an American withdrawal can spur national recociliation, then saying reconciliation can't happen anyway. He is right to acknowledge the high possibility of horrific civil war post-withdrawal. In a country with very little formal institutional government and a populace awash in weapons and opposing interests, civil war is far more likely than reconciliation if American troops are withdrawn.

As to the assertion that American military presence is the primary causal factor of "messianic, jihadi violence" Arkin is quite correct. He, as well as other left-wing pundits, have poorly analyzed the relevance of this fact however. Arkin and others of his persuasion take this phenomenon to mean that if the US military presence is reduced, the prevalence of messianic jihadists will subsequently decrease.

This is incorrect, as it assumes that messianic jihadism is a rational reaction to the American military presence. It is not. Had these terrorists used as their casus belli the restoration of the Baathist regime, the establishment of independent Sunni and Shiite states, or the siezure/reallocation of natural resources or wealth, then perhaps their resistance could be deemed rational. However, their casus belli has been defeating the infidel crusader in his war against Islam and his attempt to subjugate Muslim nations.

The fact that they have not only used this ridiculous policy analysis as a casus belli but have continued to expound upon it despite a global focus on American foreign policy shows quite clearly that the messianic jihadist reponse is not a rational one. Since it is not a rational response, it is absurd to assume that an action such as an American withdrawal would affect the messianic jihadist forces. Furthermore, the very obvious fact that the messianic jihadists view their struggle as one of pious religion against decadent atheism, anything that doesn't drastically alter that dichotomy will have no effect on the prevalence of Islmic jihadism.

The American occupation of Iraq is very similar to the U.S. occupations of Cuba and the Philippines in the late 19th century. Same kind of imperialist exploitation, though perhaps not quite so brutal. There will be a U.S. presence in Iraq for a long time, though not to the degree militarily that it is now. Whether the "surge" (escalation) worked or not, or whether the resultant decrease in blooshed was due to successful Iraqi ethnic cleansing and/or a Sunni switch in loyalty (temporary?) to the U.S., the cost in lives, Iraqi infrastructure, refugees, and dollars (probably at least $1 trillion when all is said and done) is quite a price to pay for a circa-19th century endeavor.

I think the military has learned something about counter insurgency and working with people. This is a lesson that al-Qaida has not learned, and the reason behind the recent military success. However the success or failure of Iraq as a nation is the responsibility of the Iraqis. We cannot help them there.

CHE, what are we're winning?

I read through these comments daily. Have been doing so over a year. And I can't help but recall the words of Elbert Hubbard:

"The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge."

Strikes me there sure are a lot of "satisfied" and "content" people routinely making comment here.

So much for thoughtful enlightened discussion. And an end to perpetual ignorance.

"...at least on a timetable as short as the patience of the American people." Yuck! Will the MSM please stop spitting Bush's spin at us? Imagine you dialed 911 and an hour passed, during which you and your loved ones were tied up, your home robbed, your son shot and killed, is it patience you lack?

Stop lying for the Pentagon, Miller... I mean Arkin!

[...]
U.S. To Stay In Iraq Forever:

What?

Permanent U.S. bases in Iraq?

I've never heard of anything so absurd!

Why, you -- you -- you conspiracy theorist!

How can you be so shrill, so irresponsible, so, so, so...

Oh, wait.

"Iraq's government is prepared to offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq and preferential treatment for American investments in return for an American guarantee of long-term security including defense against internal coups, The Associated Press learned Monday.

The proposal, described to the AP by two senior officials familiar with the issue, is one of the first indications that the United States and Iraq are beginning to explore what their relationship might look like, once the U.S. significantly draws down its troop presence."
[...]

In Full: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TPMmuckraker/~3/190748742/004771.php

Just what would be the advantage if Iraq were to become a true democracy? Would they possibly have major and enduring animus towards a country that invaded them without any reason of validity and created a death storm and devastation? That is possible you know.

"I think history will judge the surge as probably the most successful counter-insurgency military operation in history," Sen. Lindsey Graham.

We will never know for sure; does anyone remember when sometime ago Muslim Cleric Muqtada al-Sadrstated that he would have his fighters to simply pull back? My brother of the cloth, yes I said it, felt that by pulling back (his fighters) it would help to facilitate an early American withdrawal.

Who, or whatever is responsible for the latest improvements, with respect to the diminished fighting in Iraq, all I can say is great!

Now having said that, and with respect to withdrawing the American troops from Iraq -it is not going to happen - not today, tomorrow or next year. We will maintain a permanent presence in Iraq for as long as we can!

We did not make the huge investment in Iraq, and build that huge embassy in Baghdad for nought. We are not leaving Iraq - at least this cleric does not believe it!

Someday along with the Amerasian babies from the post-Vietnam era, there will be a bunch of Amerislamic babies running around!

We are winning in Iraq, so eat it, all you anti-war whiners.

With the current Bush/Cheney/neocon crafted approach, Iraq, eventually, will become a radical anti-American Islamic republic with Sadr (or someone like him) in charge. The "bullets and bombs" strategy will not win the "hearts and minds".

Lindsey Graham is a murderous moron who doesn't know his a-s from a hole in the ground