Reply #10: Respectfully, [View All]

[Drum]

I would have reservations about that, despite my strong feelings against the ass-clowns who have done all this policy+ damage.

No one seems to be warm to giving support (after all of the ultamata the US gave to potential partners regarding "resources" and the commercial aftermath,) and even in the face of this very public fiasco no one else seems to be offering anything. So I think that assistance would be tough to get, particularly for this go-it-alone, tough-guy-cliche in the Oval Office. Total denial there.

If there was anybody who hung onto my esteem--for awhile--in the past term, it was Colin Powell, who summed up what I mean: "Mr. President, if we break it we've bought it" (paraphrasing here.) On top of all the bad will we've accrued as a national entity from all of the many non-combat f***-ups, the war policy has done such other damage that the US has to do something to repair or preserve some order and infrastructure. While I feel very strongly as you and others here, and definitely do not want anything like another debacle like Vietnam, I think immediate withdrawal would doom a lot more lives.

I've read others' much more organized posts on some conditions and steps which seem to make a lot of sense, and I'd urge you to look out for them. Terms like relinquishing the right to have permanent military bases in Iraq, for instance. This sounded right off to be a first step, and takes away that stink of colonization (to be blunt, not raping and then forcing to marry.)

I am bitterly mad at this "administration," upset by this posse of idiots and all of their many lackeys, but I think maybe something might be preserved of the whole mess, namely that the country Bush&Co have so decimated might go on completely without the US. Soon. We've already sunk so low in the eyes of the world's people, that we've gotta do it the best way (but I'm talking really soon.)

Otherwise, here on the homefront, let's keep pushing...truth will out.