The War in Iraq is now a Complete Success....

well yeah - if you've succeeding in doing something you don't need to keep doing it.

This is indeed great news, and a huge step towards bringing the troops home, however, it's only a step. Prs. Bush has already announced what has to happen for our job to be done in Iraq. We shouldn't count every success as a reason to quit.

And you sound like a moron. Do you quit doing something because you succeeded?

The purpose of war isn't to create jobs. It's sad that you resent freedom for anyone but yourself, but selfishness is one of the rights we have. It seems you aren't above repeating a few lies yourself. I wonder if you consider your own freedom as pointless.

Um, the facts disagree with you. This war started when Hussein took Kuwait. The ousted Kuwaiti government asked for help in purging Hussein's government from their nation. That phase of this war ended with a ceasefire agreement between Iraq and the US led coalition. As a result of Hussein constantly breaking that agreement, Prs. Bush chose to enforce the terms.. i.e. a return to hostilities. You see, when a ceasefire is broken it is as if it was never made in the first place. That is the difference between a ceasefire and a surrender. In Prs. Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address he stated 4 reasons for war with Iraq. 1: WMD (which admittely has turned out to be only partially right), 2: Enforcement of the Ceasefire Agreement, 3: Hussein's support of anti Western terrorism, 4: To liberate the people of Iraq. So you have the right to your opinions about the war, but you do not have the right to change the facts.

Wow..kinda harsh. Anyway no lies here just my opinions. Iraq will not somehow magically gain "freedom" over this. Their society has been around thousands of years I don't think America can just go in and magically solve their problems. This war had nothing to do with freedom anyway.

Gewcew: "Yes I will admit that I at times was against this war, and I will eat my words for victory. Come on serve a big slice of humble pie and I will undoubtedly devour it all up. I never wanted our troop to taste defeat, just was worried that the war would bankrupt the country. So will anyone came to the table and admit they were wrong?" I think we've all been wrong at times with this issue. Rumsfeld and Bush made decisions based on Gen. Abizaid's requests and recommendations, which time has proven to be wrong. Many of us were wrong for defending it. Those who kept saying more troops and a more aggressive strategy were right... Gen. Patreus proved to be a great choice.

What should we have done about Hussein's constant breaking of the ceasefire agreement?

Violation of the ceasefire agreement was not the reason we invaded Iraq. Bush claimed that Iraq was harboring the terrorists responsible for 9/11, and that they were constructing weapons of mass destruction (specifically they have been working on anthrax and nerve gas for over the last ten years). But no proof could be found supporting either claim (none that could withstand scrutiny, that is). The authorization that the Congress granted President Bush to attack Iraq was to fight against terrorism towards the United States. Had the war started because of violation of the ceasefire, President Bush would have needed no Congressional approval to go back in, it would have been a continuation of the Gulf War and safe under international law.

Read Prs. Bush's State of the Union address again. I know the incompetent press only homed in on 1 major reason, but Prs. Bush gave 4.

I always laugh when democrats say they are against the war in Iraq, especially the ones who backed Prs. Clinton's military actions against Hussein. For most it has nothing to do with right or wrong but the little letter after the president's name. If Clinton returned us to hostilities with Hussein they would have been falling over themselves praising it. They don't support the troops, they consider the troops victims of Bush. In the myopic world of liberalism, victim=respect. In other words, they can only find it in their hearts to respect the troops if they can make them out to be victims.

So you don't support our troops as much as see them as victims. Sorry, but pity isn't respect or support.

I have no doubt at all that you respect us, it is what respect means to you that I question. Do you respect us because you look up to us, or because you consider us nothing more than victims of Prs. Bush? If you look up to the troops fighting in Iraq, what exactly is it you look up to?