Other than that, these elections mean nothing as the place remains infested with neo-terrorists and a long period or instability, if not a bloody civil war, awaits them. Their standard of living will also remain lower than before the invasion for many years...as will ours (in the US).

I see you are still compleatly unable to answer my original argument. Keep the excuses coming dude.

What makes you think I demand -- or even expect -- anything from you, other than what you've provided all along on this and all related issues: anonymous rantings, a complete lack of perspective, and the kind of unintentional comedy relief we've come to expect from pretty much everyone who retails the "Bush lied" chestnut.

I don't try to debate you because you're not a party to any meaningful debate -- by your own decision.

The question of the Iraq War is divided over two distinct belief systems. Somehow his belief was that the President, for selfish means, deliberately lied to the American people, to invade a country and take their oil.

My belief is that we were already at war in Iraq, at the request of the U.N., with no exit strategy, with Saddam stealing aid from his people, and U.N. officials taking their cut, our soldiers being shot at daily, and so on.

Stepping back away from the beliefs for a moment, one is able to examine them, without the politically charged rhetoric. What I discovered is that for my friend to continue his belief, we must fail in Iraq. Any success or progress will rattle the very foundation they have built with so much anger.

Just as Democratic members of congress will give no credit or support to the Bush administration for programs that they actually would support, the anti-war sentiment continues. There is no good news, no progress. The only exit strategy for them is for us to fail, for their "belief" to be correct, for the U.S. to put it's tail between it's legs and retreat. What a sad state of affairs, when our country's own citizens would rather fail, than see an opposing viewpoint succeed.

Police and army numbers falling far short of projections as post-election violence surges and wait for results drags on

Training of Iraq's security forces, crucial to any exit strategy for Britain and the US, is going so badly that the Pentagon has stopped giving figures for the number of combat-ready indigenous troops, The Independent on Sunday has learned.

Instead, only figures for troops "on hand" are issued. The small number of soldiers, national guardsmen and police capable of operating against the country's bloody insurgency is concealed in an overall total of Iraqis in uniform, which includes raw recruits and police who have gone on duty after as little as three weeks' training. In some cases they have no weapons, body armour or even documents to show they are in the police.

The resulting confusion over numbers has allowed the US administration to claim that it is half-way to meeting the target of training almost 270,000 Iraqi forces, including around 52,000 troops and 135,000 Iraqi policemen. The reality, according to experts, is that there may be as few as 5,000 troops who could be considered combat ready.

Obvoiously you are unable to refute my point about Bush basing a war which has killed over a thousand Americans, maimed many times that number, wasted a vast amount of national treasure at a time when schools and firehouses are closing in America, was based on a "fact", which was in fact, total BS.

Why do you not demand facts from the president of the US? Why won't you demand the same standard from Bush you demand from me?

Why do you care if I publish my email? I get far too much email as it is, I have no desire to get are related to postings on this site. You are free to say anything you wish to me in this forum. If James does not require an email to parcipate, where do you get off trying to demand information I don't wish to disclose. I am free to publish using a pseudonym. You Bushites are for freedom, right?

Guees since you were compleatly unable to refute my argument you had to come up with some BS to respond with. Pretty weak. Bout what I have come to expect from you. But, hey, you are safe and sound at home. Your ass in not going to get shot off in Iraq tonight. Guess life is good.

As per the OP, I think it is probably a good thing that one party did not get a clear majority, because it means that the parties are going to have to work together and compromise some. I think whether or not the can get a constitution written and ratified will be the main telling point as to how successful this will be.

You mean facts like the "fact" that Saddam had WMD that could be deployed to attack America in 45 minutes that was Bush's rationale for the war? That kind of fact?