I take umbrage with that statement. With the possible exception of Spain, "turn tail and run" is an unfitting and denigrating description of how European members of the coalition performed in Iraq. Many withdrew in the past month or so because the UN mandate ended on 12/31/08. A few nations, the UK and Romania to be specific, still have a substantial number of troops in Iraq.

I never add the UK to anything that I term as EU for a number of reasons that I won't go into in this thread.  My g-mother is from the UK, and I'm a huge fan of Britian period. They are America's #1 ally, and I'd go to war and fight for the UK any day of the week.

But considering you are an American, I fail to see why you are so offended?  It seems as though every time I post anything, you take "umbrage" with whatever I say, so I'd be lying if I said I wasn't surprised at your response.

No matter what I post, you only comment on the things that you disagree with... sorry if you have some personal vendetta against me, but that's just something your going to have to work on yourself.  I think it's rather immature of you, but I suppose that is your right, so be my guest.

I find it mildly pretentious that you think I have some vendetta against you-I do not have one-and also slightly distracting. Anyway, back to the current topic. I am offended because it is spurious and denigratory to say the Europeans "turned tail and run." Even if I entertain your notion that the UK is indeed not European, I would still characterize your statement that way. Romania and Estonia still have forces in Iraq. Bulgaria, Poland, and the Czech Republic had forces in Iraq until the 2nd half of 2008. I could continue, but it should be abundantly clear that the Europeans did not "cut tail and run."

Slightly distracting? Okay, whatever you say bro. Every post I've created, you only nitpick the disagreements you have with me and ignore the rest of the post. I don't really care, it is actually quite humorous for me. Every Batman needs his Joker.

And now, back to the topic as you prefer...

EU Coalition Force (minus the blessed British whom I adore):

Romania - 505 non-combat, security detail troops
Estonia - 40 active combat troops (and will remain)

So I'm sorry Jackson5050, you are right... 40 EU troops remained in the coalition for combat. Thank God for the EU, because without those 40 troops we'd have no hope.

And as I stated, the rest of the EU tucked their tails and ran. The war is still being fought, and they left. Only Britain, the U.S., and a handful of Australian troops are staying to finish the fight.

My mother's parents immigrated here from Germany, and I'm offended as well... I'm offended that when my maternal homeland was ravishing Europe, America came to the rescue, and when they asked for the same help when they were attacked by Islamic terrorists, Europe ran back home and whined about American aggression.

I truly disagree with Israel's actions.... all they are doing is murdering innocent civilians now. No one here can tell me that this leader's maids, cooks, and stuff arent civilians.

I really wish the UN would stop both Israel and Hamas than put both of their leaders up for a tribunal on their actions.

1) I do not look at the picture or screen name of the poster but the content of his/her post. If I find something I disagree with, I will post my disagreement. Whatever delusion you have of being Batman is simply that...a delusion.

2) You are ignoring the complexity of the situation in Iraq. The nations I mentioned (Bulgaria, Poland, the Czech Republic, and others) completed their respective missions and left Iraq because the UN mandate expired two days ago. The SOFA that does not cover the US stipulates that foreign troops must complete their mission and cease military operations by May 31, 2009. They must also withdraw their forces from Iraq by July 31, 2009. Because their missions were completed, it made sense for the other nations to withdraw their forces rather than leaving them in Iraq for another half-year. That is not cutting tail and running, that is...mission accomplished.

3) You are basing your offense of the belief that Iraq attacked the US. Iraq did not attack the US, Al-Qaida attacked the US. Taking that into consideration, the Europeans did not whine and abandon the US in defending itself against its attackers. Thousands of European troops are assisting the US in the UN-mandated ISAF in Afghanistan. I would classify that as Europe reciprocating the aid the US once provided it.

A) My point is exactly what you stated.  You look for whatever is negative in my posts and respond to it.  You ignore the rest of it.  I also stated that Hamas murders innocent Jews, and you said nothing about this... Tell me that you agree with me without a "but" added to the statement, and I'll withdraw my comment.  Otherwise, I stand by my statement that you are an antagonist who looks for negativity in a post.

B) The mission is not complete, because stability has not been achieved in Iraq.  When the new democratic Iraqi government is in a stable situation, then the mission is complete.  Right now, the terror has not subsided, and Iraq is dangerously close to becoming a clerical-fundemenatalist nation, and hence, the mission is still on going.  This is no different that had we driven the Nazis out of France, and told Europe, Ok, your on your own now.

C) Iraq is a haven for Al-Qaeda, and therefore a battleground on the global war on terror.  Iraq was also defied multiple UN resolutions, including resolution 1441, which gave the authorization of force when the Iraqi government barred the actions of weapons inspectors.  So, yes, the war in Iraq is directly tied to not only the war on terror, but also the implementation of vital UN resolutions.

1) You said I have a vendetta against you and specifically target your posts. That was your point, and it was incorrect.

2) Yes, there is a difference. France desired for the US and other allies to stay and assist them. Iraq has made it abundantly clear that they do not wish for coalition forces to continue serving in Iraq. That is why all non-US forces must cease operations on May 31 and must completely withdraw from Iraq by July 31. It made no sense for those other nations to redeploy troops from the mission they had just finished. By the time they redeployed and could contribute, it would be May 31 and they would have to cease military operations.

3) Iraq is a haven for Al-Qaida because of the invasion. The few pre-war links between Iraq and Al-Qaida are tenuous...at best. Regardless, that was not your initial assertion. Your initial assertion was that our European allies "tucked tail and ran" when we attacked those who attacked us. Al-Qaida attacked the US on 9/11 and, even though they are a decentralized organization, Al-Qaida's main area of operation was Afghanistan. Many Europeans, as my link indicates, are aiding the US in that war. This would indicate that Europe did not "tuck tail and run" when we defended ourselves against Al-Qaida.

Also, I would agree with you on the implementation of UN Resolutions had the Security Council authorized the US to enforce said resolutions. The US does not have cart-blanche to act on behalf of the SC. Although there is minor contention, most international law experts that I have consulted have concurred with my assessment that Resolution 1441 was not an authorization of force for the US.

A) No, that is not what I said.  I said that you specifically target the things that you disagree with in my posts.  And like I expected, you failed to condemn the murder of innocent Jews.  That is not surprising to me in the least bit. 

B) The U.S. desired that coalition forces stay and assist them, and they denied that request.  Saying that the Iraq wants the U.S. to leave is like saying the Germans wanted the U.S. to stop assisting the French in World War II.  It's irrelevant.

Terrorism in Iraq has not subsided, and it would be premature and counter-productive to pull out prior to completing the mission of securing Iraq.  The terrorism is Iraq has been shown to be perpetrated and directly tied to al-Qaeda, whom brought the war to the U.S. by attacking us first.

Pulling out prior to completing the mission will only encourage those same groups to perpetrate further attacks on U.S. soil, by giving them the false sense that they defeated us in Iraq by our retreat from combat.

If in the event it could be guaranteed that no further attacks would spill over onto U.S. soil, I could really care less if the Iraqi people decided to fight amongst themselves.  If that's what they desire, then it's not the America's responsibility to police their problems.  But the fact of the matter is, al-Qaeda is active in Iraq, and they have already shown that they are ready and willing to bring the fight to our own borders (let's not forget they started this fight), and therefore I'd rather we fight them on their own turf rather than in our backyard.

C) Afghanistan was al-Qaeda's main area of operation, no doubt.  But when we invaded Iraq while enforcing UN mandated resolutions, al-Qaeda showed up to the fight prior to and after Saddam Hussein was overthrown.  Therefore, Iraq is a crucial battleground in the fight against al-Qaeda, and anything short of total victory will only encourage future terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

And finally, the United States does NOT need Security Council approval to defend itself against terrorists, just as Israel does not need world approval to strike out against those who murder Jews.  If the UN wishes to pass resolutions demanding compliance of resolutions that it sees as vital to world peace, yet it lacks the backbone to enforce those rules, then there is no reason for the UN to exist.  The UN consistently passes lame-duck resolutions that condemn atrocities, yet they have shown with equal consistency the lack of muscle to backup such demands.

Lastly, please provide references to the so-called "experts" on international law that you have consulted, as you'll have to forgive me, but simply from the picture that you posted of yourself alone, you don't appear to be the type of guy with insider knowledge that the guys in the State Department are lacking.  Hey, maybe I'm wrong, but humor me and tell me who these "experts" are just so I won't feel left in the dark by those I "experts" that I apparently haven't spoken with yet.  I'm no novice when it comes to politics & intrigue, I'm a 9-year member of the Presidential Roundtable in Washington, D.C., so I'm willing to bet that these experts don't exist, or at the very least, you've never had a personal consultation with them.  Call it a hunch, but I've been around the block enough times to know a thing or two about political connections.

As a side note, and more important than any other point that I have made is that The United States IS the strong arm of the United Nations, and its primary financier.  If the U.S. were not the main supporting member of the UN, it would wither away just as the League of Nations did before it for quite the same reasons.  So as I stated prior, if the United States of America is attacked by an enemy, foreign or domestic, it is the governments role to defend its citizens despite the attitudes of the other global nations.  It matters not if the rest of the world cries fowl, because their opinion means nothing at the end of the day.  The United States will survive or die based upon its own actions, and cannot rely on anyone other than itself to guarantee its safety.

Iraq has yet to do any damage to us. You only think they will, but they havent. I cant tell you how many people americans  have killed in Afgahanistan and Iraq. Americans only talk about how many Jews are dead, to support our troops, and bless the troops that have died. never did i hear anyone talk about the Iraqi civilians that died. the number could be well on its way to 2 million.