Iran Digging 320,000 Graves to Bury Dead Enemies

http://ebergen.net/images/lolcopter.gif

Quote:

---

Iran to ready thousands of graves for enemy soldiers

AFP - Sunday, June 29 07:55 pm

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran is to dig 320,000 graves in border districts to allow for the burial of enemy soldiers in the event of any attack on its territory, a top commander said on Sunday.

"In implementation of the Geneva Conventions... the necessary measures are being taken to provide for the burial of enemy soldiers," the Mehr news agency quoted General Mir-Faisal Bagherzadeh as saying.

"We have plans to dig 15,000 to 20,000 graves in each of the border provinces or a total of 320,000," the general said, some of them mass graves if necessary.[Full Article]

---

Wow. What a f***ed up country.

Is a 10 year old running that country? That is really lame.

W.T.F.?
really?

Well its not lame and it certainly not to be joked about. The recent story in the New Yorker about our intentions has been verfied by many experts as high level military leaks that Bush is planning on attacking Iran before the year end. The one thing this country cannot afford is another war. If this Gov't really thinks America will stand behind an attack on Iran they really are out of their mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

Well its not lame and it certainly not to be joked about.

---

Yeah it is. No one is sending any troops there, and if any, certainly not enough to fill 320,000 graves. If we attack Iran it will be through air strikes and special ops. This is just classic over the top propaganda by Ahmadenijad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GothamSpotter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

Well its not lame and it certainly not to be joked about.

---

Yeah it is. No one is sending any troops there, and if any, certainly not enough to fill 320,000 graves. If we attack Iran it will be through air strikes and special ops. This is just classic over the top propaganda by Ahmadenijad.

---

Matt will you still think its lame when a U.S plane is shot down or one Special Forces solider is killed in Iran? Bush's agenda in the Mid East is a total failure and the Military option needs to moved down a few notches on his list. Only two years ago North Korea was part of the Axis of evil and we couldn't talk to them but today U.S Flagged ships are delivering food to North Korea...amazing how some diplomacy does wonders.

I'm not in favor of this happening, just pointing out the sillyness.

In all honesty, I think North Korea's "improved" relationship with the world is because they saw what we did to Iraq and its leader. I think it's one of the few good things that has come out of this war. NK was not a diplomacy victory in my mind.

The problem is that we should have went after Iran from the beginning. Iraq was the wrong target. Now we have a truly threatening enemy to contend with, but because of our own blunders in Iraq, we are standing here with our hands tied.

I think we can take Iran, but I simply don't see it happening. If so, it would happen if Bush plays nice until after the election, and if McCain wins, Bush will start it after November, and McCain will carry it along.

But then we'd REALLY be shunned by the entire world, and I think we'd see an uprising in the US that we haven't seen since 1775. People would lose their minds.

What many people are not aware of, is the us is giving boatloads of intelligent weapons to Israel. The us has really been sucking up to Israel for the past few months as well, multiple visits between Bush and Olmert have taken place in Jerusalem. It is quite obvious that the us intends to take their strongest middle eastern ally into battle with Iran, and if it wants to keep receiving financial aid from the us Israel must do as its told.

Unfortunately Iran did not learn from the Iraq war, that when the us starts something they intend to finish it. But with smart weapons that don't require human operators, what are they trying to prove by digging graves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lezam

But with smart weapons that don't require human operators, what are they trying to prove by digging graves?

---

If we catch any of your robot warriors, we will bury them!

Imagine an Iranian soldier getting lucky and shooting down a Global Hawk. They cheer a bit, hop in their jeep from 1958 and drive a mile to the crash site. Then they are baffled as to why they can't find the pilot. They search the desert for days thinking he escaped or something.

LOL

Quote:

---

In all honesty, I think North Korea's "improved" relationship with the world is because they saw what we did to Iraq and its leader. I think it's one of the few good things that has come out of this war. NK was not a diplomacy victory in my mind.

The problem is that we should have went after Iran from the beginning. Iraq was the wrong target. Now we have a truly threatening enemy to contend with, but because of our own blunders in Iraq, we are standing here with our hands tied.

I think we can take Iran, but I simply don't see it happening. If so, it would happen if Bush plays nice until after the election, and if McCain wins, Bush will start it after November, and McCain will carry it along.

But then we'd REALLY be shunned by the entire world, and I think we'd see an uprising in the US that we haven't seen since 1775. People would lose their minds.

---

NK is giving up because Mr.Il can't afford to run his private train-or cars-or plane, parts are outdated and expensive to replace. Those people were and are in worse condition than the people in Iraq or Iran.They work for nothing,live for nothing.

Quote:

---

NK is giving up because Mr.Il can't afford to run his private train-or cars-or plane, parts are outdated and expensive to replace. Those people were and are in worse condition than the people in Iraq or Iran.They work for nothing,live for nothing.

---

Very true. But lets not forget the last time we made a deal with the Norks. They kept going along with their nuclear plans. Might be the same story this time around.

But for sure, NK doesn't have any oil like Iran does. With oil prices the way they are now, Iran has a lot more leverage than NK.

What makes anyone think NK gave up its Nuclear Weapons program? Because they blew up some old infrastructure that was due to be demolished anyway? Who is doing the verification regarding their program? China?

Will NK be giving up their nukes or material already made?

Better than nothing I suppose...and perhaps all that was possible, but.... hardly a victory... NK wanted their nukes, and they probably have them now. They also want their food shipments etc. and they apparently have that now as well.

Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lezam

Is a 10 year old running that country? That is really lame.

---

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Li...tml?mea=169811

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

The recent story in the New Yorker about our intentions has been verfied by many experts as high level military leaks that Bush is planning on attacking Iran before the year end. The one thing this country cannot afford is another war. If this Gov't really thinks America will stand behind an attack on Iran they really are out of their mind.

---

There's something to be said about the threatening the use of force and its effects on diplomacy's level of efficacy. Also, plans are just plans and there's are likely lots of plans on Pentagon shelves that will never be used.

I also don't think a military confrontation with Iran is all that far fetched. Why? Crude spot prices are above $140/barrel. You can argue the reasons why but that's the price. What's Iran have to do with this? The Strait of Hormuz. 21 miles wide at its narrowest point - estimated 20% of world's oil production goes through there by ship. If Iran says they are going to enforce a naval blockade of the Strait, no telling how much a barrel of crude is going to be $200, $250, $300? And rerouting that production is not as simple as you think because you can't easily move the infrastructure set up to deliver oil by ship - not to mention the ships trapped in the Arabian Gulf.

In that scenario, do you think that Americans would be content to stand idly by? Iran has threatened this action in the past and so it's not so foolish to have contingency plans for military action.

Of course Iran has indicated it will block The Strait of Hormuz IF they are attacked (by the US or Israel presumably), so that is (one of) *their* contingency plans.

If we are already attacking them, and they block the Strait, isn't it obvious that whatever they block it with will be a collection of small pieces of debris within 24 hours?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

If we are already attacking them, and they block the Strait, isn't it obvious that whatever they block it with will be a collection of small pieces of debris within 24 hours?

---

How deep is the water in the shipping lanes? They may not need a traditional "naval blockade" - you sink a couple of tankers in the right spot, and it could have the same effect.

With 21 miles wide at its most NARROW point, I'm sure we'd have a plan to even prevent that kind of thing from happening then.

Somewhat off-topic, but the people that cry "no blood for oil" about Iraq are wrong, because we are not taking Iraqi oil, and we've not benefited from the war in terms of oil. Unfortunately, oil IS our bloodline, and if we need to, we NEED TO fight for it. I do think we should fight Iran if they try to prevent us from getting the oil that we need to operate as a nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

With 21 miles wide at its most NARROW point, I'm sure we'd have a plan to even prevent that kind of thing from happening then.

---

Yes, but the actual shipping lanes consist of 2 2-mile wide lanes (one inbound, one outbound) with a 2-mile buffer between them. Just because the strait is 21 miles wide doesn't mean it is navigable over that entire width.

I was reading somewhere (can't find the site right now) about a supposed "contingency plan" Iran has that would include aircraft, surface and underwater naval vessels, anti-shipping missiles, mines, coastal artillery, as well as chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Back in the mid-80s, during the Iran/Iraq war, the two sides engaged in a "tanker war" where they fired on each others oil tankers, during which foreign-flagged ships were caught in the cross-fire. Shipping dropped 25%, and eventually the US Navy stepped in to protect foreign shipping.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't relish the thought of riding on a large, lumbering boat full of crude oil while someone was shooting at me. :shock:

The American ppl will not support action against Iran and rightly so. Do we really need to under the same President violate our own Founding Father's beliefs of never invading a sovereign nation again? Our Gov't lied to us about Iraq and unless there is a broad Global alliance that is willing to stand side by side not one U.S solider or bomb should fall on Iran.

You know the symbolic crest of this nation is an eagle with an arrow in one claw and an olive branch in the other. In the 1950s the Eagle was changed so that its head was facing the same direction of the olive branch to reflect America's stance towards peace and diplomacy as a solution vs military action...under our current President that doesn't seem to be the case. Its time we sit down face to face with Iran for high level talks to work out a peaceful solution via diplomatic means rather then military. The people of Iran once they start to get a taste of the West will free themselves of their tyrant leaders. Its happened before with nations and it can happen again.

1. They didn't LIE. They may have been very wrong and poorly planned the war, but I've never seen proof that they have full prior knowledge that Iraq did not have WMDs, which is what would constitute a lie.

2. If someone (Israel) goes to war with Iran, and they do block oil shipping, we had BETTER attack them. We can't afford to spend $15 a gallon because some loon think he's immune because potheads in Union Square will cry if we attack anyone else.

I don't want war, but this guy doesn't get a free pass if he provokes us.

I wish diplomacy would work, but when it comes to Islamic extremism, it's just not going to happen when you have so many that are brainwashed and scared to even consider anything else.

No one wants war, and it's not like Bush woke up one day saying "Well, i'm going to find an excuse to attack Iraq today". All military experts from many nations agreed on intelligence that Iraq had WMD's, Bush is not an evil man, you may not agree with him but he isn't evil.

The problem is how do you negotiate with a man who has stated that he feels that it is his Allah-given gift to wipe Israel and its allies (U.S.) off the map? You can't, the best you are going to do is the failed N.K. policy of Bubba. You can't negotiate with a crazy person, it is impossible.

I'm all for the diplomatic action, but what I am NOT for is giving into the demands of crazy leaders and terrorists like Ahmadinejad. We CAN NOT be lead by fear or utter hatred of war that we refuse to stand up and say enough is enough. Do I want it to happen? No, of course not! But we should not take on a stance of appeasement.

The US has absolutely no choice but to attack Iran if it blockades the Strait in any way, however, that is apparently exactly what Iran is prepared to do IF they get attacked.

The Mullahs ruling Iran are unfortunately asserting themselves in the Israel issue. Unfortunate because the Persians, (Iranians), do not have strong feelings on Isreal (in comparison to the Arab states at least) and its a hugely populated country that is not necessarily anti-American (or especially so when you consider the CIA helped install the Shah, the Navy shot down a Civil Airliner, etc).

Maybe its best to let Israel handle this alone.... and if the Strait gets blocked by Iran, well, the world knows the US will need to unblock it, and that will not be questioned.

But be prepared. Iran is not Iraq. There will likely be many American casualties in Iraq and possibly the Gulf States, a massive attack on Israel from all sides, terrorist attacks on US Soil, and of course the Strait will be blocked (for a time) and the US economy will be destroyed.

And, how long will the Stait be blocked? A week? A month? Or will sabotage continue for years upon years? And what will happen when Iran sends human waves and hundreds of thousands of rag tag troops behind the Republican Guards? Sadam had to use WMD to stop them. Where is our Million Man Army when they overrun the Iraqi border? Our 3 million man army? Do we have enough bombs to stop them, short of going nuclear?

There are reasons much of the military command and intelligence agencies are against attacking Iran, it is certainly not that they believe Iran is not a threat.

Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

1. They didn't LIE. They may have been very wrong and poorly planned the war, but I've never seen proof that they have full prior knowledge that Iraq did not have WMDs, which is what would constitute a lie.

2. If someone (Israel) goes to war with Iran, and they do block oil shipping, we had BETTER attack them. We can't afford to spend $15 a gallon because some loon think he's immune because potheads in Union Square will cry if we attack anyone else.

I don't want war, but this guy doesn't get a free pass if he provokes us.

I wish diplomacy would work, but when it comes to Islamic extremism, it's just not going to happen when you have so many that are brainwashed and scared to even consider anything else.

---

1. Phil....the administration lied or stretched the truth if you will when it came to invading Iraq... Not one report prior to the war said they had WMDs. There was ZERO evidence that Iraq had connections to terror groups. It was all part of Bush's grand plan to spread Democracy through the Mid East.

2. So you think by attacking Iran and clearing the straight for shipping oil prices will come down and not skyrocket? Any action against Iran even with secure shipping lanes will launch oil through the roof which is something we can't afford.

How many other nations around the world are calling for military action against Iran? Do you know? ONLY ISREAL..... Not one other nation wants military action, does that make them weak? Its a dam good thing there were cooler heads back during the cold war in Washington or NONE of us would be here right to even debate about Iran.

Our military is stretched WAY to thin right now to handle another battle front. Who’s to say Iran won’t roll tanks into Iraq opening a front along the boarder? There’s a very good reason high level military officials leaked some of Washington’s plans because they know a confrontation with Iran won’t be the cake walk like we had against the Iraqi army. The situation is vastly different then it was when we invaded Iraq.

In order to make Iran back down we need a strong alliance of nations that number one will work via diplomatic channels to bring a peaceful solution to this situation but also show Iran that the nations of the world will use military force if required. The U.S CANNOT do it alone this time, it’s that simple. We risk economic and social destruction if we do. You can blame the retard sitting in office for that….

In the past we’ve dealt with nations that had extreme leadership and extreme philosophies that many said we could never talk to….i.e. China…Look what Nixon did when he went there! He used diplomacy with the backing of the U.S military to open China to west. Iran poses no direct threat to the U.S or its interests.

We aren't dealing with normal people over here, this guy is determined to destroy our way of life. He is sitting there high on his pedestal, thinking hes invincible. Why cant we just go in with a couple rouge snipers and kill him?

Here are some quotes from Ahmadinejad I found on the web, I found them interesting:

Quote:

---

"Not only the US and Israel, but a hundred others like them cannot attack Iran and they know it themselves," the Iranian president was quoted as saying.

---

Quote:

---

"They know the Iranian nation and are aware that they cannot talk to us with the language of force and threats. They must give in to the will of the Iranian nation," he added.

---

Quote:

---

"They are expecting the day will come when our crude oil and gas will be finished. When that happens, they hope to sell these commodities to us at very high prices," the Bernama report quoted him as saying.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom_Turner

But be prepared. Iran is not Iraq. There will likely be many American casualties in Iraq and possibly the Gulf States, a massive attack on Israel from all sides, terrorist attacks on US Soil, and of course the Strait will be blocked (for a time) and the US economy will be destroyed.

And, how long will the Stait be blocked? A week? A month? Or will sabotage continue for years upon years? And what will happen when Iran sends human waves and hundreds of thousands of rag tag troops behind the Republican Guards? Sadam had to use WMD to stop them. Where is our Million Man Army when they overrun the Iraqi border? Our 3 million man army? Do we have enough bombs to stop them, short of going nuclear?

There are reasons much of the military command and intelligence agencies are against attacking Iran, it is certainly not that they believe Iran is not a threat.

---

My thoughts exactly. The consequences of the use of military force against Iran will be far far worse than even not doing anything at all. We could have won in Iraq, but chose not to. We can't win in Iran, because they don't play by the rules.

Of course, before we invaded Iraq, there were moderate factions making significant headway in Iran. We should have been propping them up, instead of helping Ahmadinejad gain power through our actions in Iraq. Remember, Saddam Hussein's regime was Sunni even though the Shiites are the majority in Iraq. Ahmadinejad is a Shiite. The Sunnis and the Shiites generally hate each other. By overthrowing Saddam, we created an Iran-Iraq alliance. Ahmadinejad knows that, and it gives him every right to talk like he's invincible, because he basically is.

(Am I the only one who opposed the Iraq war on the grounds that it was bad military policy?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

1. Phil....the administration lied or stretched the truth if you will when it came to invading Iraq... Not one report prior to the war said they had WMDs. There was ZERO evidence that Iraq had connections to terror groups. It was all part of Bush's grand plan to spread Democracy through the Mid East.

2. So you think by attacking Iran and clearing the straight for shipping oil prices will come down and not skyrocket? Any action against Iran even with secure shipping lanes will launch oil through the roof which is something we can't afford.

How many other nations around the world are calling for military action against Iran? Do you know? ONLY ISREAL..... Not one other nation wants military action, does that make them weak? Its a dam good thing there were cooler heads back during the cold war in Washington or NONE of us would be here right to even debate about Iran.

Our military is stretched WAY to thin right now to handle another battle front. Who’s to say Iran won’t roll tanks into Iraq opening a front along the boarder? There’s a very good reason high level military officials leaked some of Washington’s plans because they know a confrontation with Iran won’t be the cake walk like we had against the Iraqi army. The situation is vastly different then it was when we invaded Iraq.

In order to make Iran back down we need a strong alliance of nations that number one will work via diplomatic channels to bring a peaceful solution to this situation but also show Iran that the nations of the world will use military force if required. The U.S CANNOT do it alone this time, it’s that simple. We risk economic and social destruction if we do. You can blame the retard sitting in office for that….

In the past we’ve dealt with nations that had extreme leadership and extreme philosophies that many said we could never talk to….i.e. China…Look what Nixon did when he went there! He used diplomacy with the backing of the U.S military to open China to west. Iran poses no direct threat to the U.S or its interests.

---

I don't care about the threat of terror from Iraq. To me, that was never a reason.

There IS, however, reason to believe that they had WMDs. There were evidence of developments over the years, and their defying of UN inspections all led the WORLD to believe that. It wasn't just Bush that believed that. People act like a LOT of Democrats weren't for it, when they voted for it.

UNFORTUNATELY, they were either wrong, or Saddam snuck whatever he had into Syria or Iran.

I'm not saying the war was right, but the threat of WMDs was real.

We should have waited, and monitored Iran, and saved our "war card" for them.

Also, we can EASILY take out Iran. They would run a much more conventional war, which is our bread and butter. Roll into Iraq with tanks? PLEASE do! It would be another Desert Storm.

Quote:

---

Also, we can EASILY take out Iran. They would run a much more conventional war, which is our bread and butter. Roll into Iraq with tanks? PLEASE do! It would be another Desert Storm.

---

Iran's army is far more capable then Iraq's army which at the time of Desert Storm was just coming off of a very long and drawn out war with Iran. They had nothing left in them to put up a fight. Yes we would win but there would be a heavy toll to pay in American life. Diplomatic means is the only solution this country can afford right now both socially and economically. President Bush has put us in a really bad situation, the man can't leave office soon enough.

Great points raised on both sides in the previous pages of this thread.

Some of my thoughts:

1) We can not afford going to war with Iran. Our military is stretched way too thin, is tired of the war with Iraq and will have little support for military action against Iran. You cannot expect soldiers, many of whom have served up to four, 15-month tours in Iraq, to engage in a new war with what will be seen by many as poor justification for it. If you cannot get troops to believe - even the slightest - in what they are fighting for, you will not achieve success in a military operation.

2) IF we were to go to war with Iran, expect massive air strikes. Our Air Force is far superior to whatever Iran can throw up in the air, and we should be able to gain air superiority/air dominance fairly easy. But, as we saw with Iraq, we cannot win wars solely with air power. Iran is a HUGE country, with an extremely populated capital. Even with air dominance, and the latest technology from the sky, ground forces remain a vital part of any military campaign. Unless our goal is just to level Iran - killing millions of innocent civilians - we will have troops on the ground there; ref. bullet #1 on why this will not work

3) Don't forget about Afghanistan and Iraq. A war with Iran will pull forces out of these two extremely unstable, volatile countries, thereby undoing most of what we have accomplished there in the past 6 years.

4) The American public will not stand behind a war with Iran. While many were for Afghanistan, the country was split on Iraq, no one will support a campaign against Iran - short of an extreme event - regardless of how high oil prices rise. Everyone suffers with high gas prices. We are a smart, technologically advanced country. We are already finding ways to reduce our dependence on oil and will surely work around this.

5) I'm not so sure there are plans in the works to declare war against Iran. Obviously there are plans for a war with Iran - meaning if we do have to go to war with Iran for some reason or another, we do have plans for it. We would be foolish to not have plans for this - just like we would be foolish not to have plans to go to war with China, North Korea etc... etc... Just because we have plans doesn't mean we are planning to engage in anything. I think the people who are "leaking" this information, are doing so because they want to make absolutely certain that nothing happens.

I have many other thoughts/comments on the issue, but those are the big hitters for now.....

Quote:

---

I'm not saying the war was right, but the threat of WMDs was real.

---

Oh btw...no it wasn't. UN inspectors said conclusively they had ZERO evidence Iraq had any WMDs before we went in. Invading Iraq sadly will down in history as the worst military decision we've ever made. To be blunt at this point the Bush Administration should be investigated on their reasons and evidence for war. Bush clearly broke a long held U.S Doctrine of not invading other nations and the more and more I read about why we did and the lack of real evidence we truly had...it does boarder line on criminal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

Quote:

---

I'm not saying the war was right, but the threat of WMDs was real.

---

Oh btw...no it wasn't. UN inspectors said conclusively they had ZERO evidence Iraq had any WMDs before we went in. Invading Iraq sadly will down in history as the worst military decision we've ever made. To be blunt at this point the Bush Administration should be investigated on their reasons and evidence for war. Bush clearly broke a long held U.S Doctrine of not invading other nations and the more and more I read about why we did and the lack of real evidence we truly had...it does boarder line on criminal.

---

Hate to break it to you, but the UN isn't made up of a bunch of people gifted with x ray vision. How many people were allowed in at a time? Few. Remember, sadaam kept pushing the peace keepers out of the country? He had plenty of wiggle time to either hide these WMD's, or ship them out.

So, no matter what you or I think, we might never know if he had these WMD's or not, thats why we entrust our government to find out. No matter how much blame you put on Bush's regime, I think you can agree that he did not go in there blindly just to kill some Iraqis.

Quote:

---

So, no matter what you or I think, we might never know if he had these WMD's or not, thats why we entrust our government to find out. No matter how much blame you put on Bush's regime, I think you can agree that he did not go in there blindly just to kill some Iraqis.

---

No Bush went in there under the auspicious that Iraq had WMDs even though the U.N said there was no evidence and there was no evidence any WMDs were smuggled out of Iraq, which is evident he ignored. Bush went in to create a strategic geographic position to put pressure on both Iran and Syria...it back fired and now there is nothing we can do about Iran's influence on the Mid East. It was piss poor planning and management from the start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

No Bush went in there under the auspicious that Iraq had WMDs even though the U.N said there was no evidence and there was no evidence any WMDs were smuggled out of Iraq, which is evident he ignored. Bush went in to create a strategic geographic position to put pressure on both Iran and Syria...it back fired and now there is nothing we can do about Iran's influence on the Mid East. It was piss poor planning and management from the start.

---

Thats exactly the case; its actually the only thing that makes any sense, but presented that way, its not something the American people would buy to attack another country...so, instead, we get everything else...

1 > WMD
2 > Get Sadam .... he's a tyrant to his people...
3 > Spread Democracy...
4 > Fight the terrorists and kill them over there...
5 > Protect the Sunni North...

Anyway, the "Democratically elected" government they have now, seems to want a timetable for the troops to LEAVE... but Bush is apparently resisting this notion of the liberated "Sovereign" Nation of Iraq. Thats the funny thing about Democracies in 2008 isn't it? The American "People" and the Iraqi "People" (overall for both) would like the troops to leave...but...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom_Turner

Anyway, the "Democratically elected" government they have now, seems to want a timetable for the troops to LEAVE... but Bush is apparently resisting this notion of the liberated "Sovereign" Nation of Iraq. Thats the funny thing about Democracies in 2008 isn't it? The American "People" and the Iraqi "People" (overall for both) would like the troops to leave...but...

---

The funny thing is Bush has said repeatedly that he would pull troops out if the Iraqis asked...now they are asking and we aren't budging.