lol i know what you mean. in a sense they still are fighting that fight, just not with the same intesity.

Random-

The poll of troops who would prefer to pull out of Iraq now was from the New York Times.

You can pull it up in their archives.

I personally only know 3 people who are there now (and 1 who is here and doesn't want to go back) but they all want to come home asap. So I have 100% who would like to leave but not enough total numbers for satistical significance.

i agree we shouldnt of went into iraq i agree there was no reason. but you know what we are there now. we have a job to do over there and surrender is not an option. if we pull out we tell terrorists that we forgive them for 9/11 and i dont know about you all but i havnt forgave them yet. i think the country needs to grow a pair

One Delta-

What does 9/11 have to do with the war in Iraq?

(that's a rhetorical questions because it has been shown over and over and over that the two events are unrelated)

Eg. here's an artical from this weeks Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/11/AR2007091102316.html

But you only have to google 9/11 and the war in Iraq to come up with literally dozens of reputatble sources.

And you must have known this already because you started out with "i agree we shouldnt of went into iraq i agree there was no reason. " So are you arguing with yourself? I'm confused, but apparently not as confused as you are?

As for the countrys "growing a pair" as a woman I really wouldn't know but I do know that the most admirable, courageous men I have known were all ones who would not stubbornly clings to an obvious mistake, especially if it harmed others. No, the people I have known, men and woman, who were truly brave (i assume that's what a pair indicates)... those people were the ones who were brave enought to admit when they had made a mistake...

I wonder, are you such a man? Just curious....

were not fighting iraq in iraq we are fighting every arab that dislikes america in iraq. most of the insurgents arnt even iraq citizens. that is why i say we are fighting terrorists. so now there is a link to it due to the terrorists that are now in iraq. was there one at the beginning no there wasnt but things change. and what you dont understand is the most courageous men are the ones that will be true to their word when you swear into the military you swear to follow your orders given to you by the president and the officers appointed above you. do i agree with the reason we are in it no. but would it help if we left no. and we will always have forces in iraq from this point on. we built a us embassy there so now theres always going to be a presence in iraq

Yes, actually I do understand that the soldiers swear to follow orders (although they are allowed, and even required, to disobey illegal orders). But I was not saying that the soldiers are not courageous...

I was speaking of the President, the order-giver, he's the one who should be courageous enough to admit he made many mistakes and do something to address them...

General Petreas stated yesterday that he "doesn't know" if staying in Iraq will make anyone safer. Please tell me, how will it help if we stay?

it wont unfortuanateley the bush administartion has made the whole situation a catch 22

I agree Lizard King, it was a rhetorical question for One Delta but thanks for the input...

What Petreas actually said was he didn't know and that was not his job to figure that one out. His job was to fight the war the best way he could. He followed it up later by saying that his belief was that it actually would help. So if you keep saying the same thing you are ignoring the truth. Its annoying but I can live with it just the same, so long as you know that I know.

As for whether terrorism has anything to do with us being in Iraq, it does, however the connections are a little more subtle than can be grasped by the common mind when it is busy refusing to understand.

Looking at the bigger picture is hard when you won't open your eyes. Does anybody pay enough attention to put things in a historical context. Ok obviously some of you do.

As for whether AlQeida is stronger now than before 911, Well they may be stronger, but I don't think so. They and the Taliban get their heads smacked every time they pop them up. There are still plenty to go around, but they are keeping their heads down a whole lot more.

There is an ideology of hate over there. They teach children to hate and to kill. Those children grow up and hate and kill. As long as they keep sending their children to hate and kill there are going to be these sorts of problems. Might as well face it. As the world becomes more well traveled, these people will blend into our society. We try to welcome them into our colleges and such, then some of them use their education and access to our country against us.

When we try to separate religion from government here it causes people to be rational in the education system. They do not have that in the middle east. When the teachers are zealots, the students will learn to be zealots.

Mostly the lot of anarchist, terrorists are the puppets of a bunch of greedy dictators anyway. The puppets go to their deaths in the name of religion and the puppet handlers go to the bank with oil revenue or drug money or the keys to a country, depending on their own personal greedy strength.

So really its not the puppets you are fighting, its just them you have to deal with in the bigger fight.

much like what many americans do, no?

Philosopher, you wrote:

"There is an ideology of hate over there. They teach children to hate and to kill. Those children grow up and hate and kill. As long as they keep sending their children to hate and kill there are going to be these sorts of problems. Might as well face it."

Yes, children being taught to hate and kill is a terrible thing in my opinion. Some children are being taught to hate and kill over here as well... they are being taught to hate muslims...

And I did later read Petreas' complete statement and my question is:

Why is it NOT his job to determine if the war is making or has made either Iraq or this country safer?

This is a war we (the American people) were told repeatedly was a direct war on terror (not a subtle connection as you state- there are much less subtle connections between terrorists and other country but I don't see us attacking Saudi Arabia or any of the other countrys just as or even more directly, albeit possibly unwilingly, connected to terrorist groups).

So if it's a war on terror and it's goal is to make us all safer why should the man in charge of that war not feel responsible for determining whether we are meeting that goal? How can he determine if we are "winning" if he doesn't know if we are safer? Wasn't that the goal? Isn't that what we are meant to "win"?