Gates is saying that the Democrat plan will most likely lead to genocide

...as did the democratic congresses plan for the final exit of Vietnam by cutting off funding.

The left is never satisfied until body counts reach 7 figures.

Why do you keep saying stuff like that, Purple Avenger? You've sung the same song before in other threads, and it's as empty of meaning now as it was all those other times.

What is your proof? Where have you seen anything at all where a bunch of Lefties say something on the order of, "I won't be happy until the body count reaches seven figures"? Post the link, if you have it. Be sure it's not just some lone asshat commenting on a blog--it has to be something that reveals that this is the true feeling of the Left as a group, because I'm a Lefty, and I didn't get the memo you're referring to.

Second of all: why should anyone believe a single word the government says about the Iraq war? There has been too much bushwah in the past for me to be able to take anything they say seriously: Saddam/September 11; WMDs; we'll be greeted as liberators; the insurgency is in its last throes; nothing was going on at Abu Ghraib; the insurgency is still in its last throes; nothing wrong happened at Haditha; we didn't know anything about Building 18.

Et cetera.

The law of averages suggests that something that the Administration says about the war must be true, but I can't separate the truth from the spin, and I don't think many other people can, either.

Why take this latest pronouncement at face value? Because you want it to be true?

Finally: if not next year, when do we pull out? I have never, ever, ever had anyone on the Right (and, baby, I've tried to get you guys to come clean on it) explain precisely what conditions need to be met to end our involvement in Iraq. "When Iraqi security forces can stand up, we can stand down" is not an answer.

How'd we know that World War II was over? When the bad guys surrendered. That's clearly not an option here, so what will we be looking for?

This looks like one of those times that the Democrats have a plan and the Republicans have nothing, unless you call "keep sending troops over to get killed forever and ever" a plan.

So how about it, PA? Lay out the Big Purple Avenger Plan To End Involvement In Iraq. What criteria need to be met for the U.S. to leave?

Bonus points if you can do it without namecalling or other ad hominem attacks.

Doc, you've heard it numerous times. We still have bases in Japan and Germany, granted they aren't violent like Iraq but they were created to keep the regions stable following WWII. Same with our presence in Korea. Our presence in Iraq is needed to help to stabilize, then maintain stability until such a time we are no longer required.

"Second of all: why should anyone believe a single word the government says about the Iraq war? There has been too much bushwah in the past for me to be able to take anything they say seriously: Saddam/September 11; WMDs; we'll be greeted as liberators; the insurgency is in its last throes; nothing was going on at Abu Ghraib; the insurgency is still in its last throes; nothing wrong happened at Haditha; we didn't know anything about Building 18."

Saddam was evil...

Sep 11th did happen and it was from terrorists...

We were greeted as liberators, most regular Iraqi want us to remain there until they are stable (I talk to those that are there/just return as I deal with them all the time. The ones actually going out into Iraq, not hiding in the green zone writing stories they never witnessed)....

Insurgency in it's last throes... I don't believe this one either but do believe we are making progress...

Here's info on bldg 18
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/kallerson.asp

Navy, Saddam was not behind September 11. No matter how many times you and Cheney juxtapose the two concepts, it will not make it true.

Mentioning German and Korean bases is an attempt by you to avoid the issue, unless you're suggesting that we have bases in Germany to keep genocide from taking place.

When WWII was over, it was over. Sure, we have bases in Germany--it's geopolitically expedient. We're not facing insurgents there. VE and VJ days meant that soldiers started coming home.

How do we know that it's time for soldiers to come home from Iraq? What measurable criteria tell us that the war is over?

I avoided no issue, The Troops are where they are needed, the job is not done, they should remain there until the job at hand is done (stabilizing Iraq).

We didn't know how long WWII would last and were prepared to keep the troops doing their job until it was done.

Sure you have. You've avoided the only issue that counts in the "surrender/stay the course" debate: precisely what does "stabilizing Iraq" look like? Put salt on its tail. Define your terms. You don't do it because you can't do it. The pro-war faction can only speak in generalities: "stabilizing Iraq"; "stay the course"; "when they stand up we stand down." You can't answer in terms of target death rates or control of insurgents crossing borders or anything else because you know that we can't even control our own violent crime/death rates; we can't even control our own borders.

You are saying that we are going to stay in Iraq forever, and, therefore, that you are willing to accept an infinite number of American deaths in the process.

I wish to high heaven that someone on the Right would address this issue in realistic terms, rather than platitudes.

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it wasn't answered. How about specifics like this.

No more car bombs...
No more Suicide bombers...
No more Murder squads...
No more individuals hiring their own armies to cause problems...
Police/Military trained/large enough to handle it on their own should isolated occurances happen once we scale down...

That would stabilize Iraq enough to reduce our forces to a couple of bases.

Congratulations, Navy: you're the first person ever to actually answer the question!

The next question, then, is whether what you propose is actually feasible. Do you think that there will ever, ever ever be a time when there are no suicide bombers or car bombs in the middle east? They crop up even in countries that aren't at war. It seems to me that if those are your criteria for success, then you may be setting us up for never achieving our goals.

Terroristic fundamentalism is a state of mind. It can be overcome but it takes a lot of work. To give up and stick your head in the sand thinking it can't/won't get worse or happen here is being obtuse. It has happened here, it will happen again, and it is up to us (meaning all freedom loving people in the world) to root it out and put an end to it. Appeasment never works, you just get more demands and your freedoms get whittled away.

My question to you is don't you see the problem of terrorism, if you do, what do YOU think we should do about it?

And yes, I see it as an attainable goal. It will constitute hard work, determination, and better decisions from our leadership. It will also take getting the people where terrorism is bred to get behind us in support (that is probably the biggest hurdle but has the best chance for gain).

Navy:

What should we do about terrorism? I'm glad you asked.

If the "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" line of thinking were correct, then we'd be able to zip through lines at the airport and illegal domestic surveillance would not be needed. Alas, they can fight us both over there and over here at the same time; just ask the folks who died in London and Madrid.

If I were The Decider, I'd stop fighting over there and begin fighting over here. Think how many container ships could be searched by redeployed troops. They're not getting searched now--it has been all over the news. Think about how much speedier the lines at airports would be if we had redeployed troops assisting with the security checks. Think how much safer we'd be if we had redeployed troops guarding our infrastructure, like refineries and reservoirs. No, it's not glamorous, but it's our homeland, and aren't we trying to keep it secure?

Then, still in the role of The Decider, I'd decide to only use our troops in situations where OUR NATIONAL SECURITY was at stake, either immediately, or in the foreseeable future. Iraq was not such a case. Note that the Right is now reduced to saying, "If we leave Iraq, there will be a genocide. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!

That is not a matter of our national security. Yes, at one point Saddam moved aggressively beyond the borders of Iraq, and a coalition stepped in and smacked him on the nose. After that time, there were no extraterritorial incursions, no WMDs, no nothing that made Iraq a matter of our national security. We should have stayed out.

If I were The Decider, that's what I'd do.

While I understand what you are saying, I don't agree with any of it, except remotely.

We have to be on the lookout for terrorism here as well as there and anywhere else it rears it's ugly head.

Having the military do domestic safeguarding runs afoul of the posse comitatus act and the Insurrection Act unless it's handled very delicately.

OUR National Security is now tied to the WORLDS Security. (You can nit-pick that all you want but the world is blending more and more as one, for good or bad).

You say the right says to think of the children, isn't that what the left goes on about Darfur?