the danes, (and i am one) not so much, but certainly the brits. not sure what's significant about today tho- did i miss something?
There is nothing significant about today that I know of. It's just clear that these countries have been talking to the U.S. and each other.
This made me laugh. We're losing all 53 troops there? Damnit! As I've stated, the war was won. It's the occupation afterwards that's been a bear. I would like everyone to stop calling this a war. We can leave when we care to. We're choosing to stay because we'd prefer to not have a cluster-f*** in the middle east. Simple enough? Oh, and realize that Lincoln drafted 500,000 troops in one day..... From the northern America.
?!? The Bush administration insists on labeling this as the War in Iraq and a part of the War on Terror. Your statement is just semantics. The media, the administration, congress etc.. all call this the war in Iraq so its natural that most people use the same terminology. And I'm not sure what relevance the Civil War draft is in this case.
The war on terror is like the war on drugs. It'll take a while. However, I'd truly appreciate the war money on drugs to go to the war on terror. But that's another topic. The war on Iraq was won. By anyone's account. The relevance to the civil war is obvious, or you don't know how numbers work.
Back then when Lincoln did this, he got a riot in NY. I wish Bush does the same and gets a riot. Then we will have a chance to put him in a war crime trial. Too bad he is not dumb enough to try a draft.
And yet, Lincoln is considered one of our greatest presidents. Time will tell, but if everything we have done finally stops the crap in the middle east, Bush will get kudos, as well.
Bush won't get any kudos, because he made the situation worse than it was when he came into office, and I don't think history would mark him as a great president when all he did was fix his own mistakes. Actually, right now it would be great if Bush could fix his own mistakes, but he's showing no sign of doing so.
It's true that we didn't need their troops, but they were there symbolically to display a Coalition of the Willing. Their departure has the same significance in symbolism.
Well, Lincoln was a winner. That's why he is considered great. Obviously, if Bush eventually "wins" (whatever that means). He will be considered as great as well. Unfortunately, the next President is likely to withdraw the troops, so there is no way he can "win". Of course, he can declare emergency powers and suspend elections to continue the "war". But I doubt he has the balls to do it.
I just hope Switzerland doesn't withdraw its troops. If it's one ally we can't afford to lose, it's Switzerland!!
The war on terror is like the war on drugs. A never ending waste of money just so certain corporations can make huge profits.
And if it makes the Middle East more volatile than it ever has been, as it has so far, Bush will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents we've ever had.
I realize Jr and his followers probably thought it would be that simple, but no, it's a bit more complicated than that. Most people who are/were against the war from the beginning knew it was a mistake and wasn’t going to be a “slam dunk.”
Some interesting statistics on the Coalition in Iraq. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm
The sad part is that had the war in Iraq being handled correctly it might have been a success, at least it would be in much better shape than it is today. However, that would require a competent administration which is not interested in pushing political agendas and reward cronies.
presidents do what rich and powerful people tell them to do Bush's legacy will be that he faithfully obeyed. We won't leave Iraq until our objectives are accomplished- and they aren't.
