First everyone seems to think that Iraq is now a stable country, hardly the case, there are still hundreds of casualties every month there.
Here are just a couple of headlines I've come across
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]09/05/11 Reuters: Iranian artillery shelling kills wman in Arbril[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]09/05/11 AP: Iran kills 30 Kurds near Iraqi border[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]09/05/11 Reuters: Roadside bomb wounds three in people central Baghdad[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]09/05/11 Reuters: Gunmen attack Electricity Ministry official in eastern Baghdad[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]09/05/11 Reuters: Gunmen kill off-duty soldier in northern Mosul[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]09/05/11 Reuters: Gunmen kill border guard in western Mosul[/FONT]
As long as Iraq is unstable as it is, it's ripe for a country like Iran (mentioned twice in those headlines) to do whatever they can to keep this fighting alive, or intensive it even more as UN forces are withdrawn. You can agree or disagree with the war there, makes no difference. But to leave Iraq now while it's so close to becoming a success, is a disgrace to every coalition person that died on that battlefield, to every Iraqi that died in their support of the freedom of their country. In my opinion, leaving enough troops in Iraq, to give them the best opportunity of success is the only option that should be considered.
As to Iran invading Iraq anytime in the near future, I don't see that happening, Iran is not seen as a favorable country by many nations including the US. They have spit in the face of the UN and the US and laughed about it to many times already, invading Iraq at this time would mean retaliation on a scale they are not yet prepared for, and they know it. They will continue to do just what they have been doing, that is to train and supply arms to insurgents and continue with their shelling of border towns. But I also believe that if the troop withdrawal is too fast they will intensive their involvement
To Catawba, yes the majority of Democrats voted against the war in the house, but in the senate the majority of Democrats voted for the war. So making this a GOP issue is just a lie. But you are well known for cherry picking your facts.
People should know politics well enough by now that when the results of a vote are well known ahead of time some votes are made for purely political reasons. This is not exclusive of either party. But seeing as how you are a liberal .. let me give you this one as an example.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."[/FONT]
I know you know who's words those are, so tell me was that a purely political vote and speech or one made out of pure ignorance? Has to be one or the other, because we certainly heard no such words from him on doing the same thing 5 years later have we?