Absolutly not, We should'nt be there in the first place. that was never our war in the first place. But hopefully with the democrats in control we can begin the process of getting our butts out of there and hopefully in a constructive way. What will history say about this in 200 years?

Read my other answer.

He has a tiger by the tail. At this point, no one has a good solution to this situation. GWB is struggling like everyone to bring reason to chaos, but the two are not complementary. Let's see what the Dems come up with. They have two years to campaign for President, and if they have any ideas, it's time they voiced them.

Do you hit a spider as it approches or after it bites you? I agree.

No. No no no no no. No! No NO! NO NO NO NO NO NO!!! NOOOOOOO!!!! There's my opinion, here's what's behind it: Why the hell are we staying in there, letting the body count rise in a losing battle that is quickly starting to rival Vietnam in terms of unnecessary AMERICAN casualties? Not to mention how many innocent women and children and other civilians we've blown up in our haphazard approach to World Domination. War is never a good idea as a move to gain power and momentum. War is even worse when we go in with the false pretense of "liberating" a certain ethnic group. Who are we fooling? Certainly not the rest of the world. Sure, we needed to remove the insane "dictator" Saddam Hussein, but now that's done and he's even going to die for his crimes!! Wow, wasn't that our main agenda? We caught him, we pressed charges, and now he'll hang for them. Someone's going to have to clean up this mess that the Bush Administration has been blundering with for almost 4 years. And I don't think it's the puppet or puppet master we have in the White House right now (Bush and Cheney respectively). We are starting to lose the war we felt we had to instigate. And now that the momentum is quickly dissolving, the almighty warmongerers are pointing fingers at other groups who could be "dangerous" - Iran, you're next! I got a little off track here, but seriously. A blindfolded monkey could do a better job handling the war in Iraq than Bush.

I think one has only to look at the opinion polls to get the answer to this that says that a huge majority of Americans do not agree with how he has and is "handling" the war. I remember Viet Nam very well. This is much like Viet Nam, only it is a desert instead of a jungle.

It would be possible to go(leave or go to the safe Kurdish areas or our other bases), and if the radicals take over, then they would be easy targets standing in charge. Or when a foreign fighter is caught, send their car bombs back home, and see how long they keep comming when their support dries up! Syria is obviously the main culpret supported by radicals inside Egypt, and other $uni nation$.- (which even include other Suni allies such as Jordan and Qatar-but not so much these- and certainly not thier governments-except syria). Then Iran gets scared and sends in their guys with cash and shaped explosives-to target sunis and us troops. Iraq is the battleground for everyone in the region. Lets go back to our bases and let them fight each other a while. But lets stay nearby. What if Syria starts experiencing tons of car bombs every day?!?! How fast do you think it would take to get the message? How about a law that says all foriegners are banned for 6 months from Iraq-and extend it as needed? So any Saudis, Syrians, or Libyians caught there would really have no reason to be there, and could be executed! Take DNA from everyone, and say if are a suicide bomber your whole family will be executed. Would these things meet with your democratic approval?-oh this will get me nuked! by the troll stalkers) How about making cash illegal, and having computerized chips, or credit card type items with bio-recognition, so any large money transfers would be SEEN. All gold and gems would be registered, and if you had unregistered amounts it would be illegal, or confiscated. (in iraq) and ban all the inter-country religious pilgrimidges until there has been a full year of no incidents.(because the radicals throng in during these largely un-noticed.) Look at how few troops have died when everyone who hates us is fighting us at once. We could have cameras with guns mounted under them on every corner if we wanted to. It would also be possible to emplant tracking devices inside insurgents, and release them. (and they would not even know). These are some things that could be done (differently)-of this I disapprove of how it is handled.-if we are at all out war.) But bush is such a legal eagle I think he would have big problems with anything less/more(including my suggestions) than he is doing now. (morally- of this I approve of how it is being handled at the same time) This is why no one has the big answer except for no wars to happen at all. (had we signed the Leageu of Nations Charter in the first place there would have been almost no war).

No, absolutely not. The Earth does not contain enough mood altering substances to cause me to even temporarily agree with his handling of the situation.

Saddam V George The more friends you have, the more people you can kill without being hung .... Go figure?

Bush and his administration seem to have mistaken a civil war with a genuine threat to the world. Yes, violence is bad. Yes, we'd all like peace. It's not the way of man. We got into the middle fo sectarian violence under the guise of creating freedom and the result has been tantamount to throwing a lit match into a pool of gasoline. Can you imagine if, during the American civil war, someone like France had come on over and told us to break it up? There are civil wars everywhere. They're destructive, they're ignorant and they're complicated. Sending foreign guns into the middle of them have never helped and never will.