Rumsfeld Resigns-

Breaking News Donald Rumsfeld Resigns--

Do you think Bush will allow that? Rumsfeld has offered his resignation a few times and Bush hasn't accepted it, but instead has talked him into staying on. It could just be a publicity stunt to draw attention away from the election last night....:idk:

What was his reason?

What was his reason? He actually hasn't announced anything yet. At this point it is still just a so-called leak from a "defence official," this will develop over the next couple hours

Bush on tv now saying that he accepts resignation... robert gates will be new sec of defense..

Later Donald......:cry: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061108/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rumsfeld_resigns)

aw man...i dont really know if this is good or bad...but i know i wasnt thrilled about all the elections results in general...:idk:

Bush on tv now saying that he accepts resignation... robert gates will be new sec of defense.. :withstupi i saw that too, i retract my previous post because they were before the press conference.

Who cares... its not going to help the war any...

Who cares... its not going to help the war any... You are right, its no win war for USA:nonod: In the end USA will pull out of Iraq with nothing to show for it. Bush should be impeached for his lies:dthumb: Rumsfeld was made scape goat and fired.

You are right, its no win war for USA:nonod: In the end USA will pull out of Iraq with nothing to show for it. Bush should be impeached for his lies:dthumb: Rumsfeld was made scape goat and fired. Not fired, resigned!

Who cares... its not going to help the war any... You are right, its no win war for USA:nonod: In the end USA will pull out of Iraq with nothing to show for it. Bush should be impeached for his lies:dthumb: Rumsfeld was made scape goat and fired. :iagree: http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m95/markgraves138/smilies/wave2.gif So long sucker.

WE are so in for a new America. I dont know what to think but I do know we needed a change in power.:idk:

WE are so in for a new America. I dont know what to think but I do know we needed a change in power.:idk: Again...:iagree: Time for the tyranny to end.

his resignation was long overdue.

his resignation was long overdue. :iagree:

so everybody hates Rumsfeld.....but do you think Bob Gates is going to do any better?

so everybody hates Rumsfeld.....but do you think Bob Gates is going to do any better? we'll see if it's possible to do any worse.

so everybody hates Rumsfeld.....but do you think Bob Gates is going to do any better? No. He'll suck too.

No. He'll suck too. :iagree: Bush is too narrow-minded to choose anyone whose opinion differs from his own.

:iagree: Bush is too narrow-minded to choose anyone whose opinion differs from his own. http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m95/markgraves138/smilies/exactly.gif

why all the bush hatin?? just nuke'em all...i'll even push the red button, then they can start over as nice happy people who get along, OR ELSE!!! (come on ya'll, if it wasnt for all the crap bush has had to put up with from our own govt, this stupid war would be over already!! Instead he has had to fight and push for every step taken...and now the Dems are in power...) {disclaimer: i am not arguing with anyone nor trying to start one...ya'll dont freak!}

why all the bush hatin?? just nuke'em all...i'll even push the red button, then they can start over as nice happy people who get along, OR ELSE!!! (come on ya'll, if it wasnt for all the crap bush has had to put up with from our own govt, this stupid war would be over already!! Instead he has had to fight and push for every step taken...and now the Dems are in power...) {disclaimer: i am not arguing with anyone nor trying to start one...ya'll dont freak!} If it wasn't for Bush we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.

If it wasn't for Bush we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with. wait a second...Bush crashed the twin towers and blew our ppl up?

This is where this thread is going.... :flush: :leaving:

wait a second...Bush crashed the twin towers and blew our ppl up? :iagree:

This is where this thread is going.... :flush: :leaving: :iagree:

while i know that this whole war has gotten to the point of ridiculous, it did start for a reason...just somewhere in there ppl have forgotten why it started and yes, bush and the govt have meandered into something totally different...i.e. going after saddam when we were trying to get whats his face...but the intentions were good, and if it had all succeeded and been done already ppl would be cheering...blah blah blah...im done...no more...

wait a second...Bush crashed the twin towers and blew our ppl up? Did Saddam?

while i know that this whole war has gotten to the point of ridiculous, it did start for a reason...just somewhere in there ppl have forgotten why it started and yes, bush and the govt have meandered into something totally different...i.e. going after saddam when we were trying to get whats his face...but the intentions were good, and if it had all succeeded and been done already ppl would be cheering...blah blah blah...im done...no more... I wouldn't cheer. I'd still hate. Down with Bush.

The good thing about the democrats taking over the House and Senate is that it is going to give a new perspective and eye to the Iraq situation. America knows that we cant just take the troops out and rid our hands of it, but the new govt can shed soemthing new. At least we hope.

i hate politics. everyone has their own views and no one admits when they are wrong. one thing i know is that i don't like the direction this country has gone in the last 6 years. how do we fix it? :idk: i thought the prez looked a bit flustered in his 1pm speech yesterday. he kept giving the same canned answers, regardless of the questions asked. he looked a bit uncomfortable with the shift in power.

The good thing about the democrats taking over the House and Senate is that it is going to give a new perspective and eye to the Iraq situation. America knows that we cant just take the troops out and rid our hands of it, but the new govt can shed soemthing new. At least we hope. :iagree: while I am primarily Rep, the Dems had many good platforms and I hope that this is a good run overall....

so everybody hates Rumsfeld.....but do you think Bob Gates is going to do any better? Thank you.... Everybody seems to think that its going to change somin. I must be the minority but I didn't mind the guy. He had a dirty job to do and was the front and center man. He was the guy that had no choice but to answer the bad questions from the media. Basically, Bush's fall guy. Give the dude a break he didn't send us to war!

i hate politics. everyone has their own views and no one admits when they are wrong. one thing i know is that i don't like the direction this country has gone in the last 6 years. how do we fix it? :idk: i thought the prez looked a bit flustered in his 1pm speech yesterday. he kept giving the same canned answers, regardless of the questions asked. he looked a bit uncomfortable with the shift in power. as far as i have been able to tell, the poor guy is always like that...i saw an interview when he was down here in florida doing some charity "get your hands dirty" kinda work and a local guy was interviewing him and would ask a question and bush would answer with some totally off the wall, non relevant response that had nothing to do with the question...made me kinda :scratch:

You know damn well if there wasn't a change in control in the House and Senate Roooomsfield would still be there. The only reason Bush tossed him to the curb was b/c he knows things have to change now.

why all the bush hatin?? just nuke'em all...i'll even push the red button, then they can start over as nice happy people who get along, OR ELSE!!! (come on ya'll, if it wasnt for all the crap bush has had to put up with from our own govt, this stupid war would be over already!! Instead he has had to fight and push for every step taken...and now the Dems are in power...) {disclaimer: i am not arguing with anyone nor trying to start one...ya'll dont freak!} Despite the backlash, I don't believe the war would be over by now... What everyone seems to forget is that overthrowing a government by force, estabilishing a TOTALLY different type of government, and rebuilding a nation from basically nothing takes a very long time... I was guessing a decade or more when we first went into Iraq, but given the impatience of the American public we will probably cut and run before the job is done correctly... then leave Iraq in shambles... perfect to be taken over by another ruthless leader... If it wasn't for Bush we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with. I put more blame on the UN... Granted, it's shouldn't be our job to enforce international law, but 10+ years of 'you'll be sorry' and nothing more from the UN... Something had to be done... It's just too bad the UN is so pathetic. wait a second...Bush crashed the twin towers and blew our ppl up? Depends who you ask... while i know that this whole war has gotten to the point of ridiculous, it did start for a reason...just somewhere in there ppl have forgotten why it started and yes, bush and the govt have meandered into something totally different...i.e. going after saddam when we were trying to get whats his face...but the intentions were good, and if it had all succeeded and been done already ppl would be cheering...blah blah blah...im done...no more... Alluding to the WMDs... I am still not convinced there weren't any WMDs... Hans Blix gave Saddam MONTHS to clean up his act... "You can't go in this warehouse... come back next month"... 'Ok!' Iraqis as a whole were very poor, simply because Saddam was taking all their money... So now this guy has millions, possibly billions of stolen cash... to think that he couldn't use those resources to remove all traces of his weapons programs in a few months is obtuse... Not to mention the inspections fiasco... Let us not forget that we DID find weapons that Saddam had stated were destroyed long ago in some of those warehouses that Blix wasn't allowed to search... And there were big empty areas in those same buildings... Doesn't that make anyone else :scratch:? Think of it this way... much smaller scale... Cops pull you over and you have a pound of dope in your trunk... You say, "hey officer drive around the block and then you can search my car." He comes back 30 second later... Nothing there...

i hate politics. everyone has their own views and no one admits when they are wrong. one thing i know is that i don't like the direction this country has gone in the last 6 years. how do we fix it? :idk: i thought the prez looked a bit flustered in his 1pm speech yesterday. he kept giving the same canned answers, regardless of the questions asked. he looked a bit uncomfortable with the shift in power. :iagree: he kept glancing over at his puppeteers/cronies for moral support. he looked like he was gonna cry. and I can't blame him, i'd cry if i were president right now too: 1) He's got us in vietnam #2 2)The REAL war on terror (Afghanistan) is not going very well anymore cuz we didn't provide enough support for the gov't there because of (1) above. 3) Korea and Iran want us dead and they either have nukes or they will soon and we can't do anything about it because of (1) above. 4) He's being forced to fire his buddies (Rumsfeld) 5) The recent election had one of the highest mid-term voter turnouts ever and about 60% of ppl were "voting against Bush" even though he wasn't on the ballot. 6) All of the Whitehouse interns are even fuglier than Monica :cursin: .

OSP you are workin' that multi-quote button, aren't ya. :dthumb:

:iagree: he kept glancing over at his puppeteers/cronies for moral support. he looked like he was gonna cry. and I can't blame him, i'd cry if i were president right now too: 1) He's got us in vietnam #2 2)The REAL war on terror (Afghanistan) is not going very well anymore cuz we didn't provide enough support for the gov't there because of (1) above. 3) Korea and Iran want us dead and they either have nukes or they will soon and we can't do anything about it because of (1) above. 4) He's being forced to fire his buddies (Rumsfeld) 5) The recent election had one of the highest mid-term voter turnouts ever and about 60% of ppl were "voting against Bush" even though he wasn't on the ballot. 6) All of the Whitehouse interns are even fuglier than Monica :cursin: . Number 6 is funny.:lol: And all of it very true. This is Vietnam and it isn't going to end well.

:iagree: he kept glancing over at his puppeteers/cronies for moral support. he looked like he was gonna cry. and I can't blame him, i'd cry if i were president right now too: 1) He's got us in vietnam #2 2)The REAL war on terror (Afghanistan) is not going very well anymore cuz we didn't provide enough support for the gov't there because of (1) above. 3) Korea and Iran want us dead and they either have nukes or they will soon and we can't do anything about it because of (1) above. 4) He's being forced to fire his buddies (Rumsfeld) 5) The recent election had one of the highest mid-term voter turnouts ever and about 60% of ppl were "voting against Bush" even though he wasn't on the ballot. 6) All of the Whitehouse interns are even fuglier than Monica :cursin: . 1) Iraq is not even close to being Vietnam... Once we are there for 10+ years and lose 50,000+ soldiers... then you can start comparing the two... We have lost less than 3,000 troops in Iraq in 3.5 years... I am not saying that's acceptable, but given other prolonged large scale military endeavors that number is very low. 4) I thought Rummy resigned? 6) I think we can all agree with this one...

OSP you are workin' that multi-quote button, aren't ya. :dthumb: Except on that last one...:lol:

...a local guy was interviewing him and would ask a question and bush would answer with some totally off the wall, non relevant response that had nothing to do with the question...made me kinda :scratch: How many politicians can you name that are straight-forward when answering questions? How many dodge the question by answering something else, or spouting out what they want the public to hear them say? Alluding to the WMDs... I am still not convinced there weren't any WMDs... Hans Blix gave Saddam MONTHS to clean up his act... "You can't go in this warehouse... come back next month"... 'Ok!' Iraqis as a whole were very poor, simply because Saddam was taking all their money... So now this guy has millions, possibly billions of stolen cash... to think that he couldn't use those resources to remove all traces of his weapons programs in a few months is obtuse... Not to mention the inspections fiasco... Let us not forget that we DID find weapons that Saddam had stated were destroyed long ago in some of those warehouses that Blix wasn't allowed to search... And there were big empty areas in those same buildings... Doesn't that make anyone else :scratch:? Think of it this way... much smaller scale... Cops pull you over and you have a pound of dope in your trunk... You say, "hey officer drive around the block and then you can search my car." He comes back 30 second later... Nothing there... I could not agree more. If I had any rep power right now, I'd rep you. Hopefully I remember when I come down off the limiter because the entire post was rep-worthy.

1) Iraq is not even close to being Vietnam... Once we are there for 10+ years and lose 50,000+ soldiers... then you can start comparing the two... We have lost less than 3,000 troops in Iraq in 3.5 years... I am not saying that's acceptable, but given other prolonged large scale military endeavors that number is very low. 4) I thought Rummy resigned? 6) I think we can all agree with this one... 1) Bush said to plan on "future presidents" being responsible for getting us out of there. To me that says it's long term. 3,000 dead American soldiers is far far to many for what we have achieved over there (10 is too many). The scale might not be the same as Vietnam but the principle is. 4) Bush said he called a meeting with Rummy and "they agreed" it was time for him to go. If Bush had asked him to stay he would have stayed 100% guaranteed! That sounds like more of a firing than an actual resignation to me, but now we're into semantics.

I am a republican thru and thru- but a change in control might be what we need- at least now we as a people have sent a msg to our gov't- if you can't get it done we'll vote in some new meat and see what they can do- I think we had great reason for starting the war- setting up a democratic gov't was not it- far past time to pull the troops out. you can't solve someone elses civil war-(ie Korea, Vietnam, and now iraq) we should have kept it simple- You kill us (terrorists & and countries that support terrorist's) then we kill YOU. period. Untill we (USA) stop trying to be so damn diplomatic these terrorists will continue to terrorize us... when we finally reach our limit and the political correct ***** goes out the window- we will start kicking some real ass and maybe get some respect again. Risking troops lives on the ground is not how we will accomplish that. ( ie Hiroshima and Nogasaki - we knew how to solve problems back then! )

1) Bush said to plan on "future presidents" being responsible for getting us out of there. To me that says it's long term. 3,000 dead American soldiers is far far to many for what we have achieved over there. The scale might not be the same as Vietnam but the principle is. 4) Bush said he called a meeting with Rummy and "they agreed" it was time for him to go. If Bush had asked him to stay he would have stayed 100% guaranteed! That sounds like more of a firing than an actual resignation to me, but now we're into semantics. 1) Rebuilding a nation should be long term... The difference is, nothing was getting accomplished in Vietnam, whereas not much (but something) is changing in Iraq... Out with the old government, democratic elections, etc... That's big stuff... I hate to see Americans die, but the comparision to Vietnam is still WAY off... Like comparing a Vespa to a Ducati... Sure they are both Italian, both have two wheels, but the performance and cost are uncomparable... 2) You are right, it's semantics...

I am a republican thru and thru- but a change in control might be what we need- at least now we as a people have sent a msg to our gov't- if you can't get it done we'll vote in some new meat and see what they can do- I think we had great reason for starting the war- setting up a democratic gov't was not it- far past time to pull the troops out. you can't solve someone elses civil war-(ie Korea, Vietnam, and now iraq) we should have kept it simple- You kill us (terrorists & and countries that support terrorist's) then we kill YOU. period. Untill we (USA) stop trying to be so damn diplomatic these terrorists will continue to terrorize us... when we finally reach our limit and the political correct ***** goes out the window- we will start kicking some real ass and maybe get some respect again. Risking troops lives on the ground is not how we will accomplish that. ( ie Hiroshima and Nogasaki - we knew how to solve problems back then! ) How could I miss this post... You lost me there at the end...

How many politicians can you name that are straight-forward when answering questions? How many dodge the question by answering something else, or spouting out what they want the public to hear them say? dont get me wrong, i like bush...but generally they make at least the attempt to make you think they are trying to answer your questions... I very rarely ever watch tv, especially the news! but in this particular episode it wasnt even a political interview, it was concerning a childrens charity... it was similar to say, for example... reporter "so, do you like coke or pepsi?" bush: "yeah, spiders are so gross, all those legs and stuff..." reporter :scratch: "no, really, do you prefer coke or pepsi" bush: "well, thats a hard question, libraries are such a good thing for education, we should build more..."

I am a republican thru and thru- but a change in control might be what we need- at least now we as a people have sent a msg to our gov't- if you can't get it done we'll vote in some new meat and see what they can do- I think we had great reason for starting the war- setting up a democratic gov't was not it- far past time to pull the troops out. you can't solve someone elses civil war-(ie Korea, Vietnam, and now iraq) we should have kept it simple- You kill us (terrorists & and countries that support terrorist's) then we kill YOU. period. Untill we (USA) stop trying to be so damn diplomatic these terrorists will continue to terrorize us... when we finally reach our limit and the political correct ***** goes out the window- we will start kicking some real ass and maybe get some respect again. Risking troops lives on the ground is not how we will accomplish that. ( ie Hiroshima and Nogasaki - we knew how to solve problems back then! ) :iagree: 100% reps served!!!

How could I miss this post... You lost me there at the end... What I'm trying to say is we risk our soldiers lives sending them in and telling them- shoot the bad guys only but be careful cause they are only a bad guy if they shoot at you first...this puts our guys at risk just so we can claim we aren't killing innocent Iraqi's... well war is war and innocent civillians are just too bad- sorry. Risking our troops for a few innocent civillians is not a risk worth taking. drop bombs/ missiles- they don't have to be atomic- but fight the war from afar- fuq the innocent iraqi's. wrong place wrong time.

1) Rebuilding a nation should be long term... The difference is, nothing was getting accomplished in Vietnam, whereas not much (but something) is changing in Iraq... Out with the old government, democratic elections, etc... That's big stuff... I hate to see Americans die, but the comparision to Vietnam is still WAY off... Like comparing a Vespa to a Ducati... Sure they are both Italian, both have two wheels, but the performance and cost are uncomparable... Hey OSP I'm gonna (positive) rep you as soon as I can for having an informed opinion, so don't get me wrong, I may disagree but I still respect your opinions. Just wanted to clear that up so nobody thinks this is escalating or getting personal. I do enjoy an educated debate though :readng: 1) We didn't go over there to do "nation building," imperialism should be a term only used in history books. We went under pretenses of making America more secure via a war on terrorism, and recent studies have shown that the longer we spend in Iraq the less secure we become. American being in Iraq is fostering more extremism and hatred towards Westerners in general. Thus our presence over there is being counter-productive in relation to our stated goal of eliminating terrorism and making the world more stable and secure. Also, I disagree that anything very meaningful has been accomplished over there yet, (other than maybe deposing Saddam) because if we stop playing referee for their civil war then everything that we have "built" will collapse and the whole place will just be a mess until Iran comes in and takes care of business which will be little better for the Iraqi people than Saddam was.

You say we are being counter-productive and we should get out. But what happens if we just pull our people out right now? We've left Iraq in a hell of a mess (not that it wasn't a mess before, but now we've made it worse) with many buildings and other structures destroyed. Don't you think the Iraqis (all of them) would be pissed at us? Many of them are happy we got rid of Saddam. However, if we pull out now, they'll be in worse shape than when we came in. So they'll all hate us, rather than just the extremists hating us.

And I agree. Nothing wrong with a civil debate. I think we all have good points, but there are MANY angles to look at. This is not a simple war, but then again, no war is simple.

And I agree. Nothing wrong with a civil debate. I think we all have good points, but there are MANY angles to look at. This is not a simple war, but then again, no war is simple. :withstupi obviously no one read my original disclaimer,:wink: but I love discussions and thank everyone for voicing an opinion in a nice way!

You say we are being counter-productive and we should get out. But what happens if we just pull our people out right now? We've left Iraq in a hell of a mess (not that it wasn't a mess before, but now we've made it worse) with many buildings and other structures destroyed. Don't you think the Iraqis (all of them) would be pissed at us? Many of them are happy we got rid of Saddam. However, if we pull out now, they'll be in worse shape than when we came in. So they'll all hate us, rather than just the extremists hating us. Actually, I never said we should get out right now. All I'm saying is that we need to have a plan and I don't think Bush is capable of creating a tenable one. "Victory" is not a plan, and "staying the course" it is not a strategy that will get us anything but more dead Americans and Iraqis. I agree 100%, we can't pull out now, we've made a mess and we need to clean it up. But something major has to change in the way that we're going about it. One idea as a starter is to actually sit down at the table with Iran (forget being pissed over something that happened 30 years ago) and some of the other regional powers and get them involved. Our isolationist approach of "if you're not with us, you're against us" is just a stupid foreign policy. Also, if we would actually give the UN some teeth it might be able to help, but we refuse to do anything that would give the UN real power.

What I'm trying to say is we risk our soldiers lives sending them in and telling them- shoot the bad guys only but be careful cause they are only a bad guy if they shoot at you first...this puts our guys at risk just so we can claim we aren't killing innocent Iraqi's... well war is war and innocent civillians are just too bad- sorry. Risking our troops for a few innocent civillians is not a risk worth taking. drop bombs/ missiles- they don't have to be atomic- but fight the war from afar- fuq the innocent iraqi's. wrong place wrong time. I want to agree with this, but the world already pretty much hates us. We start lobbing bombs and killing more civilians it will only perpetuate this... Hey OSP I'm gonna (positive) rep you as soon as I can for having an informed opinion, so don't get me wrong, I may disagree but I still respect your opinions. Just wanted to clear that up so nobody thinks this is escalating or getting personal. I do enjoy an educated debate though :readng: 1) We didn't go over there to do "nation building," imperialism should be a term only used in history books. We went under pretenses of making America more secure via a war on terrorism, and recent studies have shown that the longer we spend in Iraq the less secure we become. American being in Iraq is fostering more extremism and hatred towards Westerners in general. Thus our presence over there is being counter-productive in relation to our stated goal of eliminating terrorism and making the world more stable and secure. Also, I disagree that anything very meaningful has been accomplished over there yet, (other than maybe deposing Saddam) because if we stop playing referee for their civil war then everything that we have "built" will collapse and the whole place will just be a mess until Iran comes in and takes care of business which will be little better for the Iraqi people than Saddam was. In the wonderful wild world wide web things can get lost in translation, but I think we are handling ourselves well... It's always nice to disagree with smart people...:dthumb: And let's keep the rep relationship we have going... Those pics are money... And if you aren't already doing so... Dlit enjoys them as well... Back to the debate at hand... I agree with alot of what you are saying, but there are some points that I will probably never agree with. Going into Iraq we knew we would be replacing a government and probably should have had the foresight to recognize that it wouldn't be quick... and more importantly increased the threat of terror because of our prolonged occupancy... The bottom line is, we leave, Iraq crumbles and is probably taken over by someone just as bad as Saddam... I guess the saying is true, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...

I want to agree with this, but the world already pretty much hates us. We start lobbing bombs and killing more civilians it will only perpetuate this... In the wonderful wild world wide web things can get lost in translation, but I think we are handling ourselves well... It's always nice to disagree with smart people...:dthumb: And let's keep the rep relationship we have going... Those pics are money... And if you aren't already doing so... Dlit enjoys them as well... Back to the debate at hand... I agree with alot of what you are saying, but there are some points that I will probably never agree with. Going into Iraq we knew we would be replacing a government and probably should have had the foresight to recognize that it wouldn't be quick... and more importantly increased the threat of terror because of our prolonged occupancy... The bottom line is, we leave, Iraq crumbles and is probably taken over by someone just as bad as Saddam... I guess the saying is true, the road to hell is paved with good intentions... Excellent, check your reps...:wink: Going into Iraq we thought we were going to do what we had done in Afghanistan (a war i agree with 100%). But we didn't do our research, we didn't realize that Iraq is a bit more complex a situation than Afghanistan. Bush is the Commander in Chief and thus it was his responsibility to have made all of these considerations BEFORE going to war, but he didn't. By now everyone knows we went in without a plan for getting out and now our soldiers and Iraqi civilians are paying most of the bill and we've made a bad situation worse. Like I said to the Cap'n, we cannot and should not leave now. Iraq has become a proxy war of ideologies between western moderation and islamic extremism and that is not a war we can afford to lose! But it's a war that never should have started either, the global economy and education are the best weapons for spreading capitalism, democracy, and freedom. If we had let time work its magic then it is unlikely we ever would have had to confront this kind of extremist ideology.

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l311/cjclark69/Posting/cliff_notes.jpg

Who cares... its not going to help the war any... :iagree: I put more blame on the UN... Granted, it's shouldn't be our job to enforce international law, but 10+ years of 'you'll be sorry' and nothing more from the UN... Something had to be done... It's just too bad the UN is so pathetic. As one of the major super powers, It is our job.

1) Iraq is not even close to being Vietnam... Once we are there for 10+ years and lose 50,000+ soldiers... then you can start comparing the two... We have lost less than 3,000 troops in Iraq in 3.5 years... I am not saying that's acceptable, but given other prolonged large scale military endeavors that number is very low. With major improvements in battle field medical care, thousands of soldiers are coming home with major injuries that would have died in Vietnam. Most of these injured soldiers are disabled for life.