Buffer, you've lost me here. What does our being a democratic government have to do with anything that I suggested? We are trying to help the people of Iraq to live in a democracy with a democratic government in charge. However the terrorists have been doing all that they could to stop any kind of democracy from coming into being in Iraq. We are at war. No one is suggesting to lock up innocent Iraqi people. Things are getting out of control and too many soldiers are dying everyday because there is no law and order in Iraq. Something needs to be done to restore some kind of law and order. Impelenting a curfew and sending more troops in to secure the boarders and to make these raids is not a threat to democracy. If anything it is a step towards establishing a legitimate democracy.

There are many cases within free democratic countries where riots may occur or civil disobedience acts are done where Law Enforcement has no choice but to implement a curfew in order to restore some type of order.

Think about the L.A. Riots years ago, that were a result of the Rodney King incident. It was totally out of control. The Government of California implemented a curfew and anyone who was out after that curfew was arrested on the spot. That curfew proved to be very instrumental in helping to restore some kind of order. And the arrests made of those who violated that curfew turned out to be a major factor in removing those riotors from the streets and helping to bring calm back to the city of Los Angeles. No ones democratic rights were violated. If anything, those curfews and arrests helped protect the democratic rights of the buisness owners and the citizens of Los Angeles.

The situation in Iraq is 10,000 times magnified than what took place in L.A. And these terrorists have bombs, booby traps, shoulder to air missles, you name it. They aren't using shotguns, crowbars or throwing rocks and breaking windows.

They are blowing up innocent Iraqi people and soldiers by the dozens.

My idea of implementing a nationwide curfew and to send in more troops is one that I think would help in accomplishing the goal of a free Iraq, winning this war, and getting our military out of there asap. The way that this war is currently being fought will only guarentee that more of our soldiers will evenutally come home in body bags. A change MUST be made in order for us to complete this mission, help the Iraqis live in a democracy, and get our troops home without anymore major losses.

Any Ideas Jimmy? Any suggestions?


DonT - My calling the report bullshit was not meant to address it's content, but more so in saying that like many of these other reports over the years, nothing is really ever done except to turn these reports into political fodder for those running for office.

You talk about our failure when we sent more troops into Vietnam. That may be so. But by the same token we sent a half a million troops into Kuwait, and we succeeded in what we set out to do with probably the least amount of casualties in any war or conflict that we've ever been in. Now we go into Iraq which is 10 times the size of Kuwait, and we do so with a little more than 1/4 of the amount of troops that we used in Kuwait. It just doesn't make sense. As for Rumsfeld, well to tell you the truth, now that he is retired, I'm starting to think that HE was not happy with the way this President has handled this war. I'm starting to think that Rumsfeld and Bush may have been bucking heads because Rumsfeld wanted to do this thing the right way, with an exit strategy, and may have been given a hard time by the Presisdent. I always said that Colin Powell did not like the way that this war was being handled, so he stepped out of government gracefully. And I still stand by that claim. Both he and Rumsfeld are two experienced military people, and both were fairly successful in running wars in the past.

At least you present some ideas as to what you think should be done. Agree with them or not, at least you present them.



Don Cardi