Yep. I've got no idea what's he's doing there anyway.

Yes. It has well and truly gone far enough

If the answer has to be outright, I would say yes. But since US did the mistake, they can’t leave unless the ground realities are stable enough for safe pullout. When it will be safe? This is a contentious issue. PS: I am not taking any side here.

I think that he should come up with some sort of plan for ending it. Preferably by the end of this year. I think this has been drawn out long enough. We need to get the Iraqi forces trained so they can take over the situation so we can get out of there. There are much more serious issues going on right now that we need our forces to prepare for rather than continuing to let them languish in the Iraq desert.

Yes. He may fear the loss of respect or dignity, but he loses more every day the war continues... just as more lives are lost every day it continues.

Which war? The one he started and "mission accomplished" or the sectarian war he started with his initial "mission accomplished"? His "mission accomplished" war has been over for quite some time, according to him, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Ohh wait, that's changed again hasn't it? Or has it? It's more of a police action now in that regard. The sectarian war, he has no control over so it's not he or his government that can end it. Rarely do you see an arsonist hang around for the full 5 alarm fire and then help to put it out.

This is a loaded question, because of course we all want the War to end. However pulling out troops right now would be a bad move. Doing so would effectively give Iraq to Iran and Syria.

He would but he's so stupid he can't find the off button.

Im English. I cant stand Bush - a) over global warming and b) for the lies over the war in Iraq. However now that we have created the mess (and I am very glad that Saddam has gone), I will give Bush credit, he does realise that we cant just run away. We have to stay the course (America and Britain) until the Iraqis can govern themselves or others can take other without us. The USA (and Britain) are definately seen as part of the problem by many people from that region, but until someone else is willing to use their troops etc to bring about peace - we have to stay the course. For once I agree with Bush. If had only just got proepr UN approval in the first place - then we wouldnt be having to pick up the pieces on our own afterwards.....

The policy in Iraq definitely needs to change. I personally feel that the strategy is way off course. I remember when the generals ran the wars, they had good strategies. A for the presidents? Not so good.

NO!!!the purpose of the "war" is to remove all the insurgents and let the iraqis have peace and fix the curropoted government. how would u like if the talban and alqauda controlled our life in america wouldnt you want a bigger nation to help you

NO! It think he should go there and fight this war on his own if he's really convinced that there should be war over there.

Yes but with his ego, he never will. He should never have started it in the first place.

YES BRING THE TROOPS HOME BEFORE THERE IS NONE LEFT

I think he should, only because our troops have been through enough. BUT I don't want everything they fought for to go down the drain. So this questions is kinda like a catch 22.

How can he end the war without provoking an attack? I do want the war to be over but what happens afterwards?

Yes, absolutely!

He wont. If he hasn't accomplished what he wanted before the end of his term (which is likely) he will just leave the war for whoever becomes president to deal with.

Unfortunately Bush can't end the war by himself just as he could not start it by himself. The democrats could end this war at any time simply by not authorizing more funding. They are unfortunately using the war as a bargaining chip hoping that by prolonging the war they can get their candidate in "to end the war" the fact is the Democrats have the power to end the war now being a majority in the house and Senate but refuse to even consider it until after the elections. The Democrats approved this war, Bush couldn't do it by himself. I don't want to hear the lame old "Bush lied about WMD's" to the Democrats to get a decxlaration of war. The Democrats all believed the same lie or misinformation all the way back to the Clinton administration. Anyone who thinks Bush started this war or could end this war all by himself is extremely Naive. Both parties are at fault. It's a shame people are so one sided in their view and cannot see the big picture. This war was a joint effort by democrats and republicans alike. Both parties suck. They are both run by career politicians and are both using the war for political gain Unfortunately Bush can't end the war by himself just as he could not start it by himself. The Democrats are finding political gain in the war so don't look for either party to end the war anytime soon. If you think this war was soley Bush's idea and he singlehandedly brougt about all the bullsh*t over there you may find eye opening. There was support for a war with Iraq long before Bush took office. "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Yes, but I think that before he does... he should be forced to actually FIGHT in it himself first...

He should, but he won't because that would give too much money back to the American people. He wants to bankrupt this country and he's using the war to do it.

What? NOW? but hes only have way towards his super evil plan.