What matters are John’s interpretations of facts, which can be modified to suit internal delusions.

My elderly friends, FDR Democrats all, most who never have voted for a Republican, will NOT vote for him. Funny we haven’t heard much about this group during this election season.

If Obama learns something on his trip that pulls him closer to the Lieberman-McCain camp on Iraq and the War on Terror, thus helping to shape an Obama presidency, then Senator McCain can at least take solace that he helped prepare the next Commander in Chief deal with issues that matter more than an election.

I thought about it a bit further, and I think I can add a bit to this discussion. The US history in Iraq isn’t the same as British history in Iraq. I agree with you, however, that if a long-term US presence is needed in order to artificially sustain the integrity of the Iraqi state, then that would be a failure of British proportions. It is correct that a main mission of US forces in Iraq today is to achieve the integrity of the Iraqi state. Until we can step back from a functioning sovereign Iraqi state, we are occupiers.

As has been pointed out, we were occupiers in Germany, Korea and Japan, too. With time, we were able to step back from functioning sovereign states and end the nation-building mission while our military presence transformed into partnership roles. When I served in Korea, we took no part in governing Korea. It takes time to make the transition from benign occupier to strategic partner. We’re not there yet in Iraq, but we’re a lot closer than we were.

You need to explain this to me. Admittedly, I’m not British and your assertion confuses me because I served in Korea as an American soldier. In fact, I was on driver-escort detail in Seoul during the 50th anniversary of the Korean War commemoration.

I think the key point is defining what you mean by occupation. Obviously, the US has a history of sustained military presence in nations that are peaceful functioning sovereign democracies. I suppose the key is to understand when our military presence is no longer an occupation, as you may understand the term, and has instead evolved into a partnership.

When Senator McCain spoke about the possibility of a long-term military presence in Iraq, he clarified and I understood him to mean a military presence that looks like what we have today in Korea, not what our mission looks like today in Iraq.

You wrote: “your government has passed those sacrifices on to your descendants through massive trade and government deficits.”

Oh – then you’re not a US citizen?

Just asking…

Occam’s beard: compare the standard NATO status of forces agreement with what Goerge Bush wanted the Iraqis to sign.

njcommuter: British colonies included Sierra Leone (crown colony) and Zimbabwe (as southern Rhodesia). Those states don’t look like unqualified success stories to me.