Are you saying there was *no* risk of war? Two generations of military
strategists would disagree strongly.


NOYB wrote:
I didn't say that were at no risk. I said that they would be in "no more
risk" than the US forces in Europe faced.

Actually, there is some sense in this. US forces in Europe
have been targeted by terrorists & suicide bombers... just
not on the scale they are in Iraq.


... Yet, nobody was calling for the
Europe-based US forces to be withdrawn.


Wrong again. A lot of people were calling for the downsizing
of the military and withdrawing from Europe & Korea...
including a number of isolationist Republicans.




WASHINGTON -- Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, just back from Iraq, wants President
Bush to give the American people details about the progress being made in
that country - from military triumphs to the proliferation of cellphones and
satellite dishes.

It would make more sense if he reported that there was a
definite improvement in civil services in Iraq... how many
people are getting reliable water & electricity now?



Lieberman acknowledged that the United States should have had more troops
available after Saddam Hussein was overthrown in 2003.


That's funny, President Bush has been very insistant that
nobody ever told him they needed more troops.

DSK