How's this sound for an explanation?

Britain and America invaded Iraq in the hope of setting up an oil rich, Sunni, western friendly government.
The Shiite majority backed by Iran have become too powerful and too much of a handful for the Coalition forces to control within Iraq.

To leave Iraq now would trigger a civil war between Sunni and Shiite factions, leading to the inevitable result of a Shiite victory.
This would mean an anti western regime ruling Iraq, with the full support of Iran and a possible nuclear capable Iran at that.

Not what we had in mind when we invaded was it?

This is why Coalition forces will not be leaving Iraq, despite what we are told.
Unless of course Israel, Britain and the U.S want to see the situation escalate across the Middle East and watch as Arab, Sunni/Shiite countries join in to get control of the region and settle the matter once and for all.
Hopefully with a Sunni victory.

Or, continue to put economical and political pressure on Iran until the country collapses and replaces the present Iranian leadership with a more workable alternative.
If that fails...all out war with Iran.

What's it gonna be?

I get it..I dont know if I needed it explained to me..but thanks.

*NOT TRYING TO BE ARGUMENTATIVE*
May I ask which "conservative" talk radio shows you listened to that involved the hosts blindly towing the line of the republican party? Most of the conservative talk radio that I listen to (nationally syndicated, i.e. O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.) got to be such big names by treating all politics and politicians fairly, regardless of political affiliation. They have all publicly criticized the Presisdent in times of wrong, and also publicly praised members of political parties opposite their own as well. This is in complete contrast to AirHead America, a media group whose sole objective is to belittle any and all opposing views in as ignorant a way as possible. I personall don't care for Bill O'Reilly. I hear that he is not a nice man in person and we differ on some key issues. He was also exposed by Al Franken (of all people) to be a liar, not that he's the only liar in the world, but he was publicly exposed nonetheless.

It wasn't an explanation, just my take on reading between the lines.
I agree with you, we are being told lies.
Not being told the whole truth would be more accurate.

'Our troops' aren't coming home until we get our own way.
And it was a necessary war, but not for the reasons we were originally told.

That was actually my point just better worded...

yep, pretty much said it right there. Except, there already is a civil war within iraq. oh i'm sorry, it's not a civil war, it's a violent disagreement between two insurgent factions, or whatever the hell the bush administration is trying to brand it as.

On your last paragraph about Iran, I doubt that could work, the US have been trying to put economic sanctions on iran for ages, it's not gonna work. My guess is, Bush will bomb the sh*t out of them before his term is over, but anyone's guess is as good as mine as to what will happen after. As for the war on Iraq, depending on who is elected as the democratic candidate, and if the democrats win the next election (i'm calling very probable, seeing as how bush's popularity rate is lower than nixon's just before he was impeached), the US could very possibly be pulling out of Iraq entirely. It would be horrible for the Iraqis, i agree, and in that case I think the best thing the US could do is supply aid, and work with the UN in order to attempt to find a way to stabalize whatever government pops up. HARDLY an ideal solution, but the US should never have gone in there in the first place, its been too long, it's NOT WORKING AT ALL.

Another thought about Iran. All I've head is "they're supplying Iraq with arms, we need to stop them." Load of hypocritical bullsh*t if I ever heard it. How many wars have the US supplied arms to? The US gave arms to the taliban in the 70's to fight russia, and to Iraq in the 80's to fight Iran. Pot, kettle, black?

Uh yeah sure, I listen to a couple local radio guys: Micheal Grahm, Jay Sevrin, and Greg Hill (who does rock radio but he constantly brings up political issues and is always setting up the liberal to fail on his show)

The two national ones I listen to are O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham.

I can see why you'd have differing opinions with O'Reilly, because as I said before, he doesn't really tow the party line. It seems that the conservative media is in lock step with one another in every scandel period.

What sealed the deal for me was the other day one of the local guys was like "You know to his credit, and I hate to say this because I hate giving democrats credit for anything, but Obama has not been playing the race issue at all" This of course was prompted by a callers comment, but the idea that you wouldn't give someone credit on party affiliation is insane. I've never not given a republican credit when it was deserved. I don't know it pissed me off to no end.

Try Sean Hannity. He's better than both of them put together. We dont get Laura Ingram here. And I'm glad you didn't say Rush Limbaugh:laughing:

I try not to tow the party line either, but as I see it, the Republicans are usually right. O'Reilly just seems like an a$$hole to me, regardless of political affiliation. And don't try to tell me that Democrats don't band together 24/7. Air America gets their talking points of the day from HQ every morning.

Why is it insane? The ideal democrat and the ideal republican are basically polar opposites. Why would someone want to give credit or credibility to someone who is theoretically their complete anithesis? And whether he likes to do it or not, he still gave Obama credit, so Stan, why are you so mad?