Target,AMERICA

[BigSky]

Looks like the American public does not agree with your analysis of the situation.

Peoples opinions are fickle and play little into anything as people far too soon forget and most of all rarely pay attention to what was going on in the first place.   Especially considering the vast amount of Americans in this country know not just what occurred and didn't occur in the war on terror under the Clinton Administration.

[George Jung]

No. That is not what I am suggesting. I don't really know what to suggest. Maybe find a way to handle things from our own soil. Protect what is ours. With your way of this war it will never end. After Iraq someone else will come along. Maybe a more "worry about yourself attitude" would be appropriate, instead of trying to change the world. It doesn't feel like everyone wants to change as we do. These acts of violence are not going to help.

We did that, it didn't work remember.

What we are doing now isn't working either.

I am considering that we are no closer to the success of the cause, not what happened during D-Day. This is a different time era and physically and psychologically, war is different. There really are no comparisons.

In other words those of yesteryear had more of a backbone.

No.  In other words...although principals of war carry on throughout history adjustments must be made to fit the time and the cause.  Here we are involved in Gorilla warfare in a country that now is said to be in a civil war.  We are not making any head way.  America has always had a strong backbone and always will.  Upcoming generations are going to have to clean up your mess if we don't find someone to turn things around.  And with a quickness!

Well when you put it that way I Guess it's totally justifyable. What??? Guess I missed something. I thought we had a national debt.

Hate to tell you but the money spent on this war on terror would merely be but a drop in the bucket compared to the vast amount of money spend on medical care by the government alone. This war has hardly contributed to the National Debt as you seem to think also.

Considering what we have gotton in return?  I don't know....seems.....?  You could be right though.....maybe that is the direction we need to go.  And that's a great attitude I think.  Well we like to spend tons of $$ we don't have already so why stop now.  Who do you think is going to pay up?  We need to think more about the future and less about the past.  The livelyhood of our children will depend on it.  So argue that.  Some day, somehow, someone will pay.








EDITED: fixed quote tags- kitkatz,moderator

[BigSky]

What we are doing now isn't working either.

Actually its working far better than what you suggested.

[George Jung]

Actually its working far better than what you suggested.

You are in the minority with that opinion.  Not by much, but the number grows as our president continues to fail and the people of this country become more aware of it.  It takes some time and mistakes, you know, for humans to change their mind about something they once believed was right. 

I don't see how sending a country into a civil war is working.  Since you seem to have the point of view that is most popular......ohh, wait, you don't have the popular point of view.  Nevermind.

[BigSky]

You are in the minority with that opinion.  Not by much, but the number grows as our president continues to fail and the people of this country become more aware of it.  It takes some time and mistakes, you know, for humans to change their mind about something they once believed was right. 

I don't see how sending a country into a civil war is working.  Since you seem to have the point of view that is most popular......ohh, wait, you don't have the popular point of view.  Nevermind.

Just how many terrorist attacks have occurred on the mainland US since we went on offense compared to us being on defense?   

[George Jung]

Just how many terrorist attacks have occurred on the mainland US since we went on offense compared to us being on defense?

I'm not arguing the fact that something needed to be done.  Come on.  It's how we are doing it that bothers me.  It's our actions, today, 4 years into a "war".  Does terrorism only exist in Iraq?  No.  Yet, no other country has had a successful attack on our homeland either, and we are not present with military involvement in their countries.  That means we do not necessarily need to have hand to hand combat to achieve success.

[bigshot99]

Yes we have spent a lot of money in this war, and remember America did not start this.We got hit hard ,all in one day.Lost more lives in one day than in 4 years of fighting this war. fighting in the middle east has been going on for god knows how long now,the beginning of time??.Now they, or may i say,the enemies over there have made a noticeable impact on this country.We do our best when fighting to make sure we hit the right target.but our enemies in Iraq hit any where and hit any body.our freedom is not free.
my dad will not talk about WWII much but he did tell me that in one day they lost More than 3000 men just in the taking of one island.thats how i can justify that we have done a good job , i do have a good friend that came to to visit me when he was on leave form the war in Iraq just a month ago,and states that the troops are doing good over there and support the war.

[BigSky]

Just how many terrorist attacks have occurred on the mainland US since we went on offense compared to us being on defense?

I'm not arguing the fact that something needed to be done.  Come on.  It's how we are doing it that bothers me.  It's our actions, today, 4 years into a "war". 

Ohh thats right NONE have occurred since our going on the offense.  Hmm so far its been the longest stretch in the past past 12 years that an attack hasn't occurred on the mainland since going on offense.

Does terrorism only exist in Iraq?  No.  Yet, no other country has had a successful attack on our homeland either, and we are not present with military involvement in their countries.  That means we do not necessarily need to have hand to hand combat to achieve success.

That actually has nothing to do with the issue.  There are only a handful of countries that sanction and fund terrorism.  However there are many countries that Al-Qaeda and its associates operate in.   BTW yes we are in these other countries involved with military maneuvers and other things trying to keep terrorism from spreading.  We may not be in actually physical combat in those countries but we (our military) are undertaking various things to keep Al-Qaeda and its associates from taking a foothold in those countries. 

The biggest supporters of terrorism right now are Iran and Syria, and their day is soon coming, one way or another. 

There is a reason Iran and Syria meddle in Iraq.  They cannot afford for Iraq to be stable because then they will be put to task when Iraq is stable.

[George Jung]

That actually has nothing to do with the issue. There are only a handful of countries that sanction and fund terrorism. However there are many countries that Al-Qaeda and its associates operate in. BTW yes we are in these other countries involved with military maneuvers and other things trying to keep terrorism from spreading. We may not be in actually physical combat in those countries but we (our military) are undertaking various things to keep Al-Qaeda and its associates from taking a foothold in those countries.

The biggest supporters of terrorism right now are Iran and Syria, and their day is soon coming, one way or another.

There is a reason Iran and Syria meddle in Iraq. They cannot afford for Iraq to be stable because then they will be put to task when Iraq is stable.

I think it does have to do with the issue.  It says that we don't necessarily have to be on the offensive (hand to hand combat) in order to achieve success.

I know our military is present the world round, sorry you think I'm a complete dumb ass but I'm not.  Because of the coincidence, it seems that you would like to use that to support your belief.  I am also not saying that 4 years ago we should never have gone on an offensive after 9/11.  Of course I felt that way.  The entire country felt many emotions and was angry at what had taken place.  It still doesn't make things justifiable to continue as we are.  Do you suggest that 4 years later this is the ONLY way to protect ourselves?  I feel like we should be better/smarter than that.  4 years ago we defiantly needed to make a point and show that we will not stand for our citizens to live in fear but since then we have missed our exit on the highway of fighting terrorism.  (not an exit of the cause but our exit to reach our destination.  (It's like we are using Map Quest.)

As for Iran and Syria.  What does that mean?  More war?  Are we now going to spend our lives fighting?  Or do you think that we will solve everything with Iraq?  If you think that Iraq would be our last stop with our current strategy you are tremendously underestimating this enemy.  Also, why does the U.S. seem to be the only one fighting for a cause that would benefit the world over?  Maybe others don't agree with our strategy?  Seriously, it's a world cause correct?  So why all the focus on the U.S. and lack of allied support?

[George Jung]

So you say we HAVE spent a lot of money?  Bigsky says it was just a drop in the bucket.

There is no argument that the lives lost in the 9/11 attack are a tremendous loss but to use those number to justify is wrong. 
Our enemies have been fighting since "the beginning of time" (so to speak).  So lets join them right?  Wrong.  Are they ever going to stop?  That is what they do, what they know.  Making changes of that magnitude take lots of time, generations, so what good is our current strategy?  Again, it's not the cause I would argue but the way in witch it is being dealt with.

You are justifying loss of life with more loss of life?  If this were WWII again then the numbers could be compared side by side to gauege success/failure, but IT ISN"T WWII.  Principals of war carry over from one to the next and we should learn from each one as we have done, but that does not make it right to put the statistics to a test of measurement.

No offense but this statement is going to seem rude. 
I did not need my dad to tell me that we lost over 3000 lives while taking the beach.  Ever played the video game "Medal of Honor: Frontline"?

I'm glad to hear that your friend is doing well.  No doubt the guys over there support what they are being told to do.  From day one in boot camp the brainwashing begins.  Anyway, could you imagine what it would be like to be there and not believe in what you are doing?  I will say this again, it is not our troops that I am upset with, I support them as human individuals, but rather our leaders on the levels of making the decisions that put our troops in such a position.  Our troops are outstanding people who deserve the utmost respect.  And I'll give them that all day long.

[George Jung]

I forgot to ask why you started a duplicate thread?

[meadowlandsnj]

I just have a comment about the troops. 
We do not give them the right equipment.  We don't even give them the the things they need every day.  I was part of a group who sent care packages over there when the war first started and the ordinary, everyday thing we take for granted they do not have. 
My main problem is the care they get when they get home.  Whoever runs the hospitals should be ashamed of themselves for having these hospitals in such poor condition.  There's no excuse for that.  THese men and women gave so much to the war effort and lost so much in return.  The hospitals are moldy, rat infested, dirty and the staff isn't exactly up to par either.  My great uncle spent some time in a VA hospital in East Orange, NJ.  He was a WW2 veteran and this place was a shithole, excuse my French.  He developed sores and BITES from rodents while he was there.  We got him out, thank God.  My dad who is a Korean War Veteran used to say don't ever put me in a VA hospital.  My family through the years has been in every war this country has ever been in from the Revolutionary War through the Iraq war.  We have to start taking better care of our veterans.  Men and women who have lost limbs, who have been horribly burned, who suffer from mental illness due to the war have to be taken care of.  Their families have to be taken care of.  The waste, the corruption all has to end.
If you don't support the war, fine, I don't support the war myself.  But I support the brave military men and women who serve their country.  We got into this mess now's the time to try to see an end to it.  I don't know how or what's going to happen next but I do know that we have to do whatever we can to support the troops.
Just my 

Donna

[bigshot99]

I forgot to ask why you started a duplicate thread?

Well the duplicate thread, now thats my fault,Sorry about that. I'm over due for a vacation,,lol,,

[BigSky]

I think it does have to do with the issue.  It says that we don't necessarily have to be on the offensive (hand to hand combat) in order to achieve success.

What it says is that you had no idea we were military involved in these other countries as backed up by your statement of:

Yet, no other country has had a successful attack on our homeland either, and we are not present with military involvement in their countries.

I know our military is present the world round, sorry you think I'm a complete dumb ass but I'm not.

Well from your previous statement, ya ok

As for Iran and Syria.  What does that mean?  More war?  Are we now going to spend our lives fighting?  Or do you think that we will solve everything with Iraq?  If you think that Iraq would be our last stop with our current strategy you are tremendously underestimating this enemy.  Also, why does the U.S. seem to be the only one fighting for a cause that would benefit the world over?  Maybe others don't agree with our strategy?  Seriously, it's a world cause correct?  So why all the focus on the U.S. and lack of allied support?

Either we fight terrorists or we surrender.  Terrorists very nature do not want to coexist with us peacefully.

Also the world is fighting terrorism, expand your source of news coverage.

So you say we HAVE spent a lot of money?  Bigsky says it was just a drop in the bucket.

If you are going to reference something I said in this thread , AT LEAST have the courtesy not to take it out of context to what was actually said. 

What I actually said:  Hate to tell you but the money spent on this war on terror would merely be but a drop in the bucket compared to the vast amount of money spend on medical care by the government alone.


 

I'm glad to hear that your friend is doing well.  No doubt the guys over there support what they are being told to do.  From day one in boot camp the brainwashing begins. 

Sorry but our troops are not ignorant like you and John Kerry try to make them out to be.  You should really be ASHAMED of yourself for even trying to suggest they are weak minded.

[glitter]

Quote from: George Jung on March 25, 2007, 01:43:01 PM
I'm glad to hear that your friend is doing well.  No doubt the guys over there support what they are being told to do.  From day one in boot camp the brainwashing begins. 

I am a friend to several veterans of Iraq, one of my good friends is in Navy flight school as we write.

That is an APPALLING statement.

[George Jung]

I think it does have to do with the issue. It says that we don't necessarily have to be on the offensive (hand to hand combat) in order to achieve success.

What it says is that you had no idea we were military involved in these other countries as backed up by your statement of:

Yet, no other country has had a successful attack on our homeland either, and we are not present with military involvement in their countries.

I know our military is present the world round, sorry you think I'm a complete dumb ass but I'm not.

Well from your previous statement, ya ok

It's common knowledge that U.S. military bases and Embassies are world wide.
Sorry you have to attempt to attack me personally in order to support your position or to discredit mine.  Buddy

Also the world is fighting terrorism, expand your source of news coverage.

Ahhh....but not everyone is going about it as we still are.  Prime Minister Blair and who else?  Remember I'm talking about our tactics, not the cause.

So you say we HAVE spent a lot of money? Bigsky says it was just a drop in the bucket.

If you are going to reference something I said in this thread , AT LEAST have the courtesy not to take it out of context to what was actually said.

What I actually said: Hate to tell you but the money spent on this war on terror would merely be but a drop in the bucket compared to the vast amount of money spend on medical care by the government alone.

Sorry bout that.  You're right.  that is a great way to compare things.  Let's justify our misappropriated spending with health care (something in America everyone needs).

I'm glad to hear that your friend is doing well. No doubt the guys over there support what they are being told to do. From day one in boot camp the brainwashing begins.

Sorry but our troops are not ignorant like you and John Kerry try to make them out to be. You should really be ASHAMED of yourself for even trying to suggest they are weak minded.

So I could have stated that differently but I am not ashamed of myself.  I am not suggesting our troops are ignorant or weak minded.  I said I admire what the do.  It no doubt takes a strong person to live the military life.  I could not do it so I am defiantly grateful for all they do.  You can't argue that they follow orders and it is those orders I have a problem with.  And I'm sorry but from day one in boot camp brain washing, or whatever you want to call it, begins.   

[George Jung]

Quote from: George Jung on March 25, 2007, 01:43:01 PM
I'm glad to hear that your friend is doing well.  No doubt the guys over there support what they are being told to do.  From day one in boot camp the brainwashing begins. 

I am a friend to several veterans of Iraq, one of my good friends is in Navy flight school as we write.

That is an APPALLING statement.

Look.  I just am pointing out that the majority of our troops  are not in command.  The majority of them are taking orders and those people are taking orders and they all have to follow orders, most of them without question.  They are trained to do a job so when the time comes to carry out those orders there is no question.  They (the majority) do what they are told and believe in their heart it is the right thing and that is most commendable, in my opinion.

So I apologize if I was unclear or if I am misunderstood but I would never say anything with the intent to disrespect our men and women fighting for our countries welfare and safety.  I have the highest respect for them as humans and protectors of our homeland.

[meadowlandsnj]

Quote from: George Jung on March 25, 2007, 01:43:01 PM
I'm glad to hear that your friend is doing well.  No doubt the guys over there support what they are being told to do.  From day one in boot camp the brainwashing begins. 

I am a friend to several veterans of Iraq, one of my good friends is in Navy flight school as we write.

That is an APPALLING statement.

Look.  I just am pointing out that the majority of our troops  are not in command.  The majority of them are taking orders and those people are taking orders and they all have to follow orders, most of them without question.  They are trained to do a job so when the time comes to carry out those orders there is no question.  They (the majority) do what they are told and believe in their heart it is the right thing and that is most commendable, in my opinion.

So I apologize if I was unclear or if I am misunderstood but I would never say anything with the intent to disrespect our men and women fighting for our countries welfare and safety.  I have the highest respect for them as humans and protectors of our homeland.

I can understand your statement and I really feel you meant no disrespect to the troops.           

 Anyway, my cousin is a Navy veteran and he talks about his time in the military very rarely.  He did tell me that once you get in they OWN you.  Hey own your body, your soul, everything about you.  It's part of the deal, they try to break you in boot camp to weed out the weak ones.  They know who's going to make it and who's not.  The military made a good man out of him, he's a responsible adult with a family now who completely got his life changed around by the Navy.  He had no future in NJ where he came from, he was involved with gambling and was headed downwards quickly.  He did really well in HS so he was accepted into the Navy.  He went through school with the Navy and now he works for a famous Fortune 500 Co as a vice president in security.  I'm really proud of him and what he's done with his life.  I really think he would have ended up dead if he didn't go in when he did.  He helped Rudy Guiliani's team right after 9/11with his security training and he does a lot of charity work.  Maybe if a lot of young men and women went into the military they'd straighten out their lives and become responsible adults. 

[George Jung]

Not really on topic ...... How about the Pat Tillman situation?  I cried watching his funeral on t.v., it was incridably touching.  It's sort of sad that his family has to go through this.

[bigshot99]

So you say we HAVE spent a lot of money?  Bigsky says it was just a drop in the bucket.

There is no argument that the lives lost in the 9/11 attack are a tremendous loss but to use those number to justify is wrong. 
Our enemies have been fighting since "the beginning of time" (so to speak).  So lets join them right?  Wrong.  Are they ever going to stop?  That is what they do, what they know.  Making changes of that magnitude take lots of time, generations, so what good is our current strategy?  Again, it's not the cause I would argue but the way in witch it is being dealt with.

You are justifying loss of life with more loss of life?  If this were WWII again then the numbers could be compared side by side to gauege success/failure, but IT ISN"T WWII.  Principals of war carry over from one to the next and we should learn from each one as we have done, but that does not make it right to put the statistics to a test of measurement.

No offense but this statement is going to seem rude. 
I did not need my dad to tell me that we lost over 3000 lives while taking the beach.  Ever played the video game "Medal of Honor: Frontline"?

I'm glad to hear that your friend is doing well.  No doubt the guys over there support what they are being told to do.  From day one in boot camp the brainwashing begins.  Anyway, could you imagine what it would be like to be there and not believe in what you are doing?  I will say this again, it is not our troops that I am upset with, I support them as human individuals, but rather our leaders on the levels of making the decisions that put our troops in such a position.  Our troops are outstanding people who deserve the utmost respect.  And I'll give them that all day long.

  I was just talking with my dad about this war and that there is an out cry about 3000 k.i.a. in the past 4 years of this war. Now with all due respect, and i know you say that you can not compare WWII,,, to this war,But the FACT remains that we lost a hell of a lot more men in WWII, than this war .Now theres not many men from WWII left around to tell there story of that war,And my dad is,and he is a hell of a dad ,and husband, and men , so i would much rather hear his storys than play a game and guess how many men were lost......

[George Jung]

I would also enjoy to hear you fathers stories about his experience in WWII.  I find it very interesting to learn about history from someone who lived it.  You are fortunate to have a brave man as your dad.  He sounds like a good man.

I was just talking with my dad about this war and that there is an out cry about 3000 k.i.a. in the past 4 years of this war. Now with all due respect, and i know you say that you can not compare WWII,,, to this war,But the FACT remains that we lost a hell of a lot more men in WWII, than this war .Now theres not many men from WWII left around to tell there story of that war,And my dad is,and he is a hell of a dad ,and husband, and men , so i would much rather hear his storys than play a game and guess how many men were lost......

With each war that passes there are less and less lives lost due to technological advances.  Better weapons, more accurate tracking systems and such.  So it comes as no suprise that less lives are lost.  The style of combat is different.  I think people are upset because we can't see progress that measures up to the cost, financially and loss of life.  There is a better way.  WWII was just that, a world war, and while our cause is also of a worldly concern the world does not support our tactics.  Americans have a not so nice of a reputation right now outside of the U.S.

Anyways, all I wanted to do was to point out that the great loss of life from WWII is widely exposed, so much so that there are games about it.  I do receive my information from much more reliable sources.  It's kinda funny to me.....in high school I hated history....now I find it most interesting.  Maybe you could start some sort of thread about your dad's stories as you learn about them.  I know you said he doesn't like to talk much about it but I personally would love to hear more.

[BigSky]

It's common knowledge that U.S. military bases and Embassies are world wide.
Sorry you have to attempt to attack me personally in order to support your position or to discredit mine.  Buddy

Actually its more than just that.

Attack you?  LOL  What a joke.  This is gonna burst your bubble but using YOUR OWN WORDS against you is not attacking you. 
You made the false statement, not me.  You want to blame someone for "discrediting" you, you best look in the mirror and blame that individual for making the statement in the first place.

Ahhh....but not everyone is going about it as we still are.  Prime Minister Blair and who else?  Remember I'm talking about our tactics, not the cause.

Well I wouldn't expect everyone to fight terrorism in the same manner as us.  Countries fight to what they think needs done.

As to Iraq more countries signed up for this action than signed up for the first Gulf War.

Who else you say??

How about those in Iraq.

South Korea, Slovenia, Australia,  Georgia,  Republic of Macedonia, El Salvador, Bulgaria,  Latvia, Mongolia, Albania, Lithuania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia, Czech Republic, Azerbaijan,Estonia, Romania, Denmark, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Netherlands, Slovakia, Poland

Sorry bout that.  You're right.  that is a great way to compare things.  Let's justify our misappropriated spending with health care (something in America everyone needs).

   Really now, just how did Congress wrongly appropriate this money? 

[Bill Peckham]

Ahhh....but not everyone is going about it as we still are.  Prime Minister Blair and who else?  Remember I'm talking about our tactics, not the cause.

Well I wouldn't expect everyone to fight terrorism in the same manner as us.  Countries fight to what they think needs done.

As to Iraq more countries signed up for this action than signed up for the first Gulf War.

Who else you say??

How about those in Iraq.

South Korea, Slovenia, Australia,  Georgia,  Republic of Macedonia, El Salvador, Bulgaria,  Latvia, Mongolia, Albania, Lithuania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia, Czech Republic, Azerbaijan,Estonia, Romania, Denmark, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Netherlands, Slovakia, Poland

Let's see the first President Bush was able to marshal the following actual commitments of at least 500 troops or more:
Military of the United States: 575,000 troops
Military of Saudi Arabia: 52,000 troops (only 20-40,000 took part in the Liberation of Kuwait & Battle of Khafji)
Military of Turkey: 50,000 troops (did not take part in any battle)
Military of the United Kingdom: 43,000 troops Operation Granby
Military of Egypt: 35,000 troops
Military of Syria: 16,000 troops
Military of France: 14,663 troops Opération Daguet
Military of Kuwait: 7,000 troops
Military of Pakistan: 5,500 troops
Military of Canada: 4,500 troops Operation FRICTION
Military of Spain: 3,000 troops
Military of the United Arab Emirates: 2,000 troops
Military of Morocco: 2,000 troops
Military of Bangladesh: 2,000 troops
Military of Oman: 950 troops
Military of Italy: 800 troops, 8 Panavia Tornado attack aircraft
Military of Niger: 500 troops

And of course financially the cost of the war to the United States was calculated by Congress to be $61.1 billion. About $52 billion of that amount was paid by different countries around the world so the US net financial cost was ... wait for it ... about 10 Billion dollars. The first President Bush's war was a success and his decision to not go to Baghdad was clearly the smart decision. The father's war was a success for the World and all involved except Iraq.

Now for the boy's war:
There are six countries with more than 500 troops in Iraq: the US of course;
Military of United Kingdom ~7,200;
Military of South Korea ~2,300
Military of Australia 850
Military of Poland 900
Military of Romania 865
(source http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm )

And as for the cost I think we are spending in excess of 10 Billion dollars each month.

The boy's war has been a disaster for everyone involved except for Iran and the people who sucker punched us on 9/11. The boy is in way over his head and we're stuck with this incompetent administration for possibly over 650 more days. 

[BigSky]

The fact that more countries are in Iraq and more supported this war in Iraq speaks far more about the importance of this action.  The number of troops each has sent there matters not.  To even set such an arbitrary number like that is not only insulting to those governments trying to help but even more so to those who are on the ground risking their lives for a better Iraq.   

You bring up cost.

By all means explain to us the nuances of driving Saddam from Kuwait with that of liberation and overhaul and security in present day Iraq and bringing it into the 21st century.

[Bill Peckham]

The initial statements of support were a credit to America's long history of international leadership - countries were willing to take an American president's word. Since those heady days in the summer of 2003 what's happed?

Countries which had troops in or supported operations in Iraq at one point but have pulled out since: Nicaragua (Feb. 2004); Spain (late-Apr. 2004); Dominican Republic (early-May 2004); Honduras (late-May 2004); Philippines (~Jul. 19, 2004); Thailand (late-Aug. 2004); New Zealand (late Sep. 2004); Tonga (mid-Dec. 2004) Portugal (mid-Feb. 2005); The Netherlands (Mar. 2005); Hungary (Mar. 2005); Singapore (Mar. 2005); Norway (Oct. 2005); Ukraine (Dec. 2005); Japan (July 17, 2006); Italy (Nov. 2006); Slovakia (Jan 2007).

Countries planning to withdraw from Iraq: Poland had earlier claimed that it would withdraw all soldiers by the end of 2006. It however extended the mandate of its contingent through at least mid-2007. Denmark announced that it would withdraw its troop contingent by August 2007.

Countries which have recently reduced or are planning to reduce their troop commitment: South Korea is planning to withdraw up to 1000 soldiers by the end of 2006. Poland withdrew 700 soldiers in Feb. 2005. Between May 2005 and May 2006, the United Kingdom reduced the size of its contingent by 1,300. The United Kingdom also is planning to reduce significantly the size of its contingent by the end of 2007, with an initial reduction of 1,600 troops followed by an additional 500 troops by end of 2007.

The world came when we asked and they now straggle off scratching their heads mumbling wtf? The true price of this misguided detour will not ever be fully reckoned. What price should we put on this countries diminished stature? What country is ever going to be able to come to our side on the word of our president? Every President has had the ability to put the reputation of the United States on the line and since WWII that has been enough for our friends and allies. Since WWII we've had the power to say trust us. Now? Does Bush have that ability now? Will the next president enter office with that power?