How can the U.S. pull out of Iraq like Ned Lamont wants if we still need to fight terrorists over there?

no our war goal has not been met, bush knows this and so we will stay there until it is. our first goal was to get saddam out...done next we wanted to establish a democratic gov.....thats' done on paper only for the most part, and last we have to turn over the gov to the people. and that has not happened yet due to the shiites and sunnis not being able to get their acts straight.

the greatest military theorist said war is policy by other means. these were our policies and til they are completed war will continue

Well, first, the US is not in Iran or Syria, so our efforts in Iraq have nothing to do with what those countries do.

Second, there isn't a lot of proof (either way) that what we're doing has any significant impact on what terrorists outside Iraq are doing. Or for that matter, on what terrorists inside Iraq are doing.

It's sheer speculation (might be true, might now) that the insurgents fighting against US forces in Iraq would suddenly start attacking US cities if the US left. More likely, they'd continue their own civil war without interference from us. And those terrorists who are planning on hitting the US or Europe probably aren't spending their days planting IEDs along Iraqi highways. They're already overseas planning their attacks.

So, it's highly debatable whether our presence in Iraq is having any effect toward stopping other terrorist attacks outside Iraq.

Finally, look at it from a cost-benefit perspective. How much money (tens of millions) and how many lives (dozens) did it cost for the US to invade Iraq and topple Saddam's government . How much money (tens of billions) and how many lives (thousands) has it cost for the US to remain in Iraq and try to force them to set up a new government. Which, by the way, is nowhere close to being ready to take over their country.

What we should have done is pull out after "Mission Accomplished" and allow Iraq to set up whatever government it wanted. If we didn't like the results, we go in, topple it, and tell them to try again. We could have done that 10 times and still spent only 1% of the money and lost 1% of the lives that we have so far under the current plan.

So, regardless of the goals, the means we're using to accomplish them are highly wasteful of both resources and American lives. And from any perspective, stupid means are not a good way to achieve any goals.

Iraq is difficult to say the least but there is no way that the US can pull out - also, we cannot afford to conduct the war in three countries. If Iran and Syria continue their aggressive acts, the US will need assistance from other countries to include Israel. It would be interesting to see how the Middle East would divide at that point. Do you seriously think Ned Lamont is in his right mind?

Are you forgetting a little country called Afghanistan. The place where this crap really started. If you stay in Iraq all you do is give the terrorist shooting practice against our troops. If we leave the terrorist will be caught up in the civil war going on there and will go to either Lebanon or Afghanistan possibly Pakistan. If we make our stand in Afghanistan it will be much easier for us to see the bastards there is no cities except Kabul and we own it. Plus NATO is already there so we won't be alone. This is a good place to beat the **** out of terrorist . However to really defeat the terrorist you have to convince Israel to make an honorable face saving peace with the Palestinians this will pull the plug on the major motivating force of the terrorist. Without that the terrorist will run out of money and weapons or people willing to take them in.

Think about that for a minute. Have you seen the war in Iraq? Do you really think we can afford, in any sense of the word, to expand that war into two other countries? Terrorists aren't a soveriegn army, they are a group of people spread throughout the world who get mad when we do things like invade soveriegn nations unprovoked. We can kill everyone in Iran, Iraq, and Syria and there will still be terrorists.

The U.S. cannot leave Iraq, not ethically, at least.

- Leaving them to a new dictator would be immoral because we'd leave them to be slaves again. Sure, we cannot realistically free all enslaved people, at least not all at once; one has to do it where one can, and where one's own interests align best. We have a chance at freeing Iraqis from dictators for good, and it is a noble cause to pursue this with vigor.

- Leaving would put us in more danger because we would show great weakness.

- Our being scared away would encourage radicals to kill even more innocents next time to scare us away, knowing that they can defeat us by, ironically, killing their own.

- Iran and Syria would become even stronger by our lack of strength, and gain loads of young recruits wishing to align with the strong horse.

- Iran and Syria would also become stronger by virtue of the fact that the U.S. would no longer be strategically positioned right there next to them. We would still be in Afghanistan, but some even want us out of there (and lambasted the U.S. every day of that war). Conventional wisdom is that the U.S. is somehow weakened by our commitment in Iraq. Not so. One of our main enemies in the world is Islamo-Nazis, and we are now positioned right in their midst. How is that not a huge strategic advantage? Believe me, Assad and the Mullahs are not happy about the proximity of the U.S. military. ...not out of worry for their own people, but for their own arses.

===

If we support stability in the middle East by supporting all the dictators, as we had done for fifty years, we neither acted morally nor did we get stability. We got terrorism anyway, and chaos.

So we're trying something different. No one can now blame the U.S. for supporting evil dictators as a matter of course. The hope is, instead, to democratize the region, which will lead to great instability in the mean time. ...but stability in a dictatorial regime is only an illusion. Its people end up enslaved, and end up unstable anyhow.

You mean "...like Ned Lamont [says he] wants...", don't you?

If Ned Lamont were suddenly in George Bush's position he'd be singing an entirely different tune. Witness Queen Hillary the Great's suddenly-moderate messages now that she wishes to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate.

U. S Army wanted to kill, the worst terrorist of the world, they should kill Bush, Blair and Olmert.

This is an obvious question, and NED is a FOOL!

they cant