The United States should continue efforts in Iraq without a time-table for redeployment.

Well you have established the argument that we can't "lose" this war, and have chosen to first define loss as "pulling out, and watching Iraq get swallowed by Fundamentalist Islamic nations." While I understand the fear of that, I do not believe an argument based on "possibility" is a strong one. We can not base our decisions regarding Iraq on the "possibility" of something happening in the future. It is just not a sound strategy. Is that not the position that was taken in regards to Vietnam? Did we not enter Vietnam on the premise of a "possibility?" That possibility being the possibility that by Vietnam falling to Communism, so would other Asian countries. Did we not learn from that situation? Did Vietnam suffer to consequences of Communism? Yes, but not for long. Did the countries around Vietnam fall to Communism because of it? No, the Domino Theory proved to be wrong. I believe in many years we will see the same result regarding the "Iraq will fall to fundamentalist states" argument. Your next argument is based on the premise that if we pulled out, which we still have not established is a viable one. "Pulling out would not only feed their power, but it would also lose any hope for democracy in the middle east. It would cause more people to be angry at us, and look bad in the long run if we ever try to help someone again." I don't believe we are losing hope for Democracy in the middle east, and I don't believe that pulling out of Iraq will add to that thought. In fact, we are seeing a desire for Democracy coming out of the middle east. When President Musharraf struck down the Constitution in Pakistan, we immediately saw a negative reaction from the Pakistanis. The response is so negative, we know are seeing Pakistan return to a Democracy. We can also look to Iran. President Ahmadinejad's popularity has been on the decline in recent years. In fact, in the most recent election, his party lost many elections to parties in favor of a more Democratic system. These both are signs of progress in the middle east. In regards to "more people being angry at us", I am not sure what that means. What people would be mad at us? The Iraqis? Well the current poll suggests that half the country would like us to leave, so are you speaking of the other half? Well if we are truly speaking of wanting a Democracy in Iraq, the majority has spoken, their support for our efforts are waning. I do not believe we will look bad in the long run for pulling out of Iraq, most countries did not even support the original invasion of Iraq, so why would they become upset with us? What does it mean to "help someone again"? Are you saying it is our role to invade countries to remove their leaders we don't agree with? While this is not the topic at hand, I feel that ideal is the main issue we are having here. We have this mindset that we are helping the Iraqi people. Yes we are helping them now, but we will never help them unless we establish reachable goals, attached to a time-table of phased withdrawal. I do not believe that Iraq is doomed. The future is bright for Iraq, but not if we continue our presence there for an extended period of time. Our sheer presence in Iraq is enraging the insurgents. I believe your mindset in regards to this comment: "if we vow on pulling out, instead of finishing the fight, then we're less of a country than I thought we were." Is another fundamental problem we have. Some Americans have this mindset that by pulling out of Iraq is some how a defeat and that by leaving we appear weak and unable to do something. This is exactly what was argued during Vietnam, not only did it not end up being true. The Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, so in some perspectives, we ended up winning the larger war anyway.