text: the war in iraq: do you think the usa do not have any options?? bush says democrats do not have a strategy for iraq.  bush said recently that strategy change is to be considered in iraq. ( in october ). said some similarities existed between nam ( tet offensive ) and iraq. in the same breath he says he is going to stay the course. so knowing the current strategy (?) is not effective , he still want to continue. democrats don't have any strategy  either. so what happens?? really we only have two very general choices.  1) stay until either the country is secure, or their own domestic army can protect the country; 2)pull out prior to 1)  the problem with 1) is how will we know when the country is secure? insurgents claim they will fight till the us leaves, and the us says it will stay till the insurgents are defeated. seems a bit of a quandry eh? and by who's view of "secure" is the litmus test? by iraq's standard? by the us's? make no mistake that those are very different conditions. the us faced the same choice in viet nam.  the problem with 2) is when do you pull out? right away? gradually? from where? chances are as the troops pull out, fighting will get more intense and country wide panic will set in. for comparison read up on the pull out of viet nam. it is the spectre of those images, of people crushing against the gates of the us embassy; of those people running up the stairs of the embassy roof; and of those helicopters being pushed into the sea as more helicopters with evacuees arrived that haunt the us conscious, and exactly why the administration won't think of pulling out. if we pull out one also has to wonder what it was all for? why did all those soldiers and civilians die if we weren't going to stick around to finish it? if we were just going to pull out then why didn't we do it earlier? it also opens up the administration to charges of incompetency. it will never happen.  and as a side note, its getting a little tiring to see all the republican kids come on here and spout mis-informed opinions (probably because they heard their parents say it). democrats are "anti-military." tell that to the democrats that fought and won world war 2. that was a pretty big anti-military operation there...dem's also won world war 1. dem's fought (under un action) the korean war. dem's started viet nam escalation (not exactly a crowning achievement but certainly not "anti-military"). it was a republican that pulled out of viet nam. it was republicans that attacked panama, grenada, and iraq.  so before you characterize all democrats by one loud mouth (it would be like me characterizing all republicans as big-eared coke-heads that can't talk in complete sentences based on bush) that can't get a joke right, let us review the parties and the countries they have fought:  democrats: 1) germany x2 (at the height of their military power) 2) japan 3) n. korea (and china later) (won then fought to stalemate) 4) viet nam   republicans: 1)the us (civil war) 2) viet nam (lost/pulled out) 3) panama 4) grenada 5) iraq  who do you think is better with the military?  to whip: what does military service have to do with anything? you think that gives you more rights or something?