General in Iraq: Deal letting U.S. troops stay may break down

Is this the treaty that 'the Messiah' is supposed to hae called Iraq Prez about and said hold off until I'm in, you may get a better deal? If so, how many troop has died because of his interference? Is this in any way considered traitorous trying to undermine the government in dealing with a foreign power? Hell, maybe I have the wrong treaty in mind. I think I read about it in the L.A. Times. I'll go and check.

The only way there is going to be a deal is for Obama to be elected. McCain's position is he doesn't care what the UN or anybody else thinks. So, Iraq won't agree to anything and McCain will stay in Iraq anyway. It will be another ugly war, and we'll have both sides against us, again. If Obama wins, the Iraqis will realize that they need to come to an agreement and thwy will work together. We can all then give credit to Bush for winning his war and send him back to Tejas.

"Is this in any way considered traitorous trying to undermine the government in dealing with a foreign power?" I believe the alien and sedition act of the late 18th century was overturned, being seen as unconstitutional: violating the 10th amendment. To me, that's always been one of the problems: not getting all on board with a formal declaration of war. Start acting up and being overly critical while the country is 'really' at war, as opposed to nation building, or planting a democracy, well then one might have a case for treason and a short rope.

Wait, wait, wait. So let me understand this: The title of this article states that the talks may break down and gives a tone of failure. However, the article says that there is a 20% to 30% chance of failure. Hmmmmm, let's see. That also means there is a 70% to 80% chance of success! Now why would the Washington Times take the pessimistic perspective TO THE FACTS?! Disgustingly divisive.

While Mr. Bush claims purpose in bringing down Mr. Sadaam, if Iraq does not want us there, is there any reason to be there except for our own purposes? This begs the question, how then have we succeded in going to Iraq?

My recommendation is to pull all U.S. military personnel and equipment out of the the entire Middle East, Europe, Africa and Asia and let them fight it out amongst themselves. Defend our borders and let the rest of the world go the way they want. Be glad to trade goods, but, helping in a military manner - No Thanks we have had enough.

The Kurds indicating they would "host" American troops is just the tip of the sectarian iceberg. Let's not forget, the Kurds are also fighting Turkey (NATO ally) and Iran (Iranian Kurds in their north are highly aligned with the Kurds of Iraq). Iraq, as George Bush the first and Dick Cheney himself said are aligned along religious lines/cultural lines and tribal lines. We have Shiites (the current elected regime) who are influenced heavily by the Iranians, we have Sunnis (the ex-Saddam group, also the perpetrators of the majority of terror/insurgency) and the Kurds fighting to establish a greater Kurdistan. These things can't be solved with our involvement. There will be blood and there will be terror. This is a FACT. Presently we are PAYING disenfranchised Sunnis (some former Al-Qaeda in Iraq people) to root out FOREIGN elements that are sowing terror. Once that funding stops, the "AWAKENING COUNCILS" will be left fending for themselves. At that point the influx of foreign fighters will once again increase (notably Saudis, Egyptians from the Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinian members of Hamas). To counter this the Shiites will retaliate with Hezbollah financed foreigners. This is a no win situation for our forces. The best solution we can hope for is that the ruling Shiites set boundaries and allow the country to disintegrate to it's religious/tribal/cultural factions and set borders....none of this will happen. We could stay there for 100 YEARS as John McCain has mentioned and these hatreds and calls for reprisal will still exist. The greater threat to our nation resides in the tribal areas of Pakistan. The extremists there ARE a threat to the Pakistani government, PAKISTAN HAS NUKES. It's time we focused on what the real cause of 9-11 was... the funding of of Wahabbist Islam, centered in the tribal areas of Afghanistan/Pakistan. Put the Saudis on the spot. We can't let them use the money we are sending them for oil end up funding Wahabbism. This is our greatest threat. This situation is inevitable. There is too much money, power and

The Kurds indicating they would "host" American troops is just the tip of the sectarian iceberg. Let's not forget, the Kurds are also fighting Turkey (NATO ally) and Iran (Iranian Kurds in their north are highly aligned with the Kurds of Iraq). Iraq, as George Bush the first and Dick Cheney himself said are aligned along religious lines/cultural lines and tribal lines. We have Shiites (the current elected regime) who are influenced heavily by the Iranians, we have Sunnis (the ex-Saddam group, also the perpetrators of the majority of terror/insurgency) and the Kurds fighting to establish a greater Kurdistan. These things can't be solved with our involvement. There will be blood and there will be terror. This is a FACT. Presently we are PAYING disenfranchised Sunnis (some former Al-Qaeda in Iraq people) to root out FOREIGN elements that are sowing terror. Once that funding stops, the "AWAKENING COUNCILS" will be left fending for themselves. At that point the influx of foreign fighters will once again increase (notably Saudis, Egyptians from the Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinian members of Hamas). To counter this the Shiites will retaliate with Hezbollah financed foreigners. This is a no win situation for our forces. The best solution we can hope for is that the ruling Shiites set boundaries and allow the country to disintegrate to it's religious/tribal/cultural factions and set borders....none of this will happen. We could stay there for 100 YEARS as John McCain has mentioned and these hatreds and calls for reprisal will still exist. The greater threat to our nation resides in the tribal areas of Pakistan. The extremists there ARE a threat to the Pakistani government, PAKISTAN HAS NUKES. It's time we focused on what the real cause of 9-11 was... the funding of of Wahabbist Islam, centered in the tribal areas of Afghanistan/Pakistan. Put the Saudis on the spot. We can't let them use the money we are sending them for oil end up funding Wahabbism. THIS is our greatest threat.

It would be EXCELLENT if the Iraqis made us leave! It's been FIVE LONG YEARS, and STILL President Bush has failed to end the war, at a cost of the lives of over 4,100 of our brave troops and over $500 billion of our taxpayer money that's sunk into the desert sands over there, when we should've used it to save our economy and keep Americans in jobs. It's HIGH TIME the Iraqis took care of their OWN COUNTRY! They've been dragging their feet for years, and Bush has let them get away with it! Our troops do what they're told, but several of them are privately sick and tired of the job there--and who can blame them, with an ever-changing rationale for the war, multiple deployments, extended deployments, some shoddy protective gear and vehicles, and a lack of proper care for vets returning from the field. Let's get out of Iraq, finish the job in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) and bring ALL our troops home. And there's one candidate who will help accomplish this--VOTE BARACK OBAMA!

The invasion was illegal, why does anybody think that being illegal worries this mob? Can anybody imagine willing letting anybody inhabit their country while being exempt from all law? That ought to tell you how 'welcome' the US troops are in Iraq, and how 'Sovereign' is the state of Iraq. Occupation and oppression is the name of the game.

Where were all of you screaming liberals when Saddam was merrily torturing his way across the country and exploiting and murdering his own people in far greater numbers then we could ever imagine? You'll scream about torture at gitmo but seem to overlook it every where else in the world because were you to address it, you would realize that in general, dictators can't be negotiated with without the threat of force. Sometimes, that force has to be applied and it's best to apply it rapidly, directly and in a sufficient amount to get the point across. Glad you folks wern't around in sufficient numebrs back in 1942 or half the world would be speaking German...."Oh Hitler isn't such a bad guy". Some situations require force to resolve. How can an invasion of any type be designated as "Legal"? If by legal you mean approved by the UN then pardon me while I chuckle. The UN in general is a weak sister who, if not for the US and some European countries would have no effective fighting force or clout to speak of. Take a look at how the UN troops fled the field in the Congo leaving the civilians they're suposed to protect to be killed and displaced. Someone has to fight for some of the worlds oppressed folks and apparently only the US (and possibly The English and Germany) has the balls. Or, don't you believe that all humans have the right to live in freedon and without fear of being randomly killed by their goverment or subjected to brutality because of what they believe or who they are? If so, then sometimes you have to bleed for that freedom...or someone has to bleed for you