redblueamerica.com

I was under the impression that when Saddam was removed, the Iraqi people or government would finance the war with their oil. The joke was on us I guess. We should be getting our oil from Iraq free until the money we dumped in their is paid. Instead of purchasing saudi oil, the Iraqi oil would give Americans a gas break at the pumps.The rich get richer on the backs of working class people. I don't know how Bush or his entorage can show their face around the world or even outside their homes. They have no shame and we can't expect any more from them. The next thing will be our water , which incidentally the Bush's hold the largest source of fresh water on the planet in South America. Bush brand water will be available on the shelves as soon as we find water hard to get. So much for reading into the future. tinabee39@ yahoo.com full name tina baumann ozone park new york

This war was dumb to start with. The only good that came out of it was nothing. Thats the truth and you know it. Its all Bush and all the idiots that thought it was a good idea to vote him in for the past 8 years

DON'T WAIT ACT NOW

          peace

I respect your service to our country, Dan, yet your rhetoric is incendiary and does not lend itself to a solution. Your conclusion is a false dilemma-- other options exist. I'm sure early Roman Emperors dealing with Christians felt the same way you do about dealing with Muslims; step back and take a wider view.

You are right to apply a historical framework to the conflicts of the middle east. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire led to the redrawing of Middle Eastern borders to stymie Arab nationalism and create oil rich states rife with ethnic tension, ripe for exploitation by European powers.

Before that, the Ottomans had invaded Europe and fought through the Balkans. They threatened Vienna itself in the 14th century. And let us not forget the crusades-- an invasion by Europe of the Holy Land. Ever since Islam's emergence as a force on the world stage, it and Christendom have striven against one another.

This conflict is nothing new.

There are examples of coexistence as well. Sicily before Norman rule and Moorish Spain before the Reconquista are both examples of the flowering of culture possible when cultural exchange is peaceful. The renaissance benefited greatly from the ancient texts preserved by Islamic scholars, and there would be no calculus without Algebra and Arabic numerals!

But this is ancient history compared to the meat of your post-- we agree that the events in Iran in 1979, and the general embroilment of the West in the Middle East deserve to be looked at as a whole. We need to understand why we are there: oil.

'Our' oil happens to be under their sand, and heaven help any nationalists that do not kneel down before our sacred right to extract it. Heaven forbid the native people have a say in their own fate! That would smack of freedom, and self-determination-- in direct opposition to American corporate needs!

Name a Muslim corporation, Dan. Just one. Because Fascism can also be known as Militant Corporatism, and there aren't powerful Muslim corporations, Radical Islam cannot be fascist. Saddam Hussein's Ba'athists were very secular, as are Syria's Ba'athists; totalitarian, but not all that Muslim. Iran's mullahs and the Taliban don't meet in boardrooms deciding on the next 'acquisition' for Islam, the way our vice president sat in with oil firms over a map of Iraq in 2002. They're just theocracies that we'd agree are malignant. Totalitarianism and malignant Theocracy deserve to be opposed, but to call them fascist is wrong. Fascism is a Western phenomenon; it's our problem, not theirs.

Only when we address underlying issues, such as our dysfunctional relationships with Saudi Arabia and Israel, and cease combat operations against Muslims can we deradicalize Islam. This is the way forward. Mitigating the desperation required to produce a suicide bomber is the surest way to stop him. There will always be explosives and opportunities to use them, but people won't become terrorists if we can offer them a dignified alternative.

No I'm not a war monger or profiteer. Your arguments are old. But here's the point. Would you agree that it would be very nice to live in a peaceful world. Not having to worry about terrorists or war. This only way this is going to be achieved is to get rid of these dictators. Iraq has killed millions of there own people and Iranians over the past years. Iraq has supported terrorism around the globe. (Saddam would pay terrorist's families a lump sum if they took themselves out) To deny that Iraq wasn't associated with terrorism is being dumb and very short sighted. Chemical weapons were used on the Kurds. But the point is now moot. We're already there. The people of Iraq are now free. What price is freedom? The threat was there. Now we're absent of that threat. Sounds like a good move on our part. And remember, when Saddam went down, Quadafy did a 180.

When Osama attacked the towers he had to know we would come after him with all we had, but he didn't care. He had a statement to make and he made it. It's not about him or them hating our freedoms, it's about us being over there. Nothing more. He doesn't care who, how many, how loudly the support for the troops are, he only cares that we leave the middle east.

If we had taken the money we've spent on this war, and on the Department of Homeland Security, and the Transportation Security Administration we could make ourselve energy independent and all those middle eastern countries who pretend to be our friends can all go pound sand and those Islamic idiots can have the whole frigging desert and the oil that goes with it and none of our good soldiers would have to die for Halliburton's bottom line or for some neo-con experiment.

This war was never about freedom, it's always been about oil and W's obsession with Saddam which the neo-cons exploited for their own end. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan, caught and killed Osama and then left.

If not for our overwhelming dependence on oil, they wouldn't have anything we want. There's nothing there worth fighting for.

I believe that going into Iraq before finishing the job of making Afghanistan a stabil gov. and more importantly getting OBL was a major mistake. We went in without a plan on getting how unlike what Bush chided Clinton on in Bosnia. We had a war game in 99 that concluded that we needed about 400000 to invade and hold Iraq and predicted much of what has transspired so far.
Rumsfeld was more concerned about being like LBJ and running the war in spite of what generals that weren't yes men were saying. He sent our troops without the equipment to protect themselves and since has had to resort to major changes in the volunteer services to keep recruitment up. His efforts I believe put a hurt on the military that will take years to resolve. I do believe that Petraus and Gates were far better than Rumsfeld would have ever hoped to be, but the retirement on Fallon worries me that we now are going back to wanting yes men. The surge was to give the Iraqi gov a chance to organize and militarily it did the job, but the gov hasn't stepped up and Cheney on his trip now is doing his same old things are great game. I believe that the Iraqi gov will continue to let us do the dirty work until we force them to do otherwise. AQ is already moving back into Afghanistan and Pakistan and will continue to do so. My vote is that we've basically done what we can and unless the Iraqi gov wants to start doing its part we will be like McCain says and be there a 100 years still trying to be the policeman.

I too am a Vietnam and desert storm veteran. Pick any war in history and you'll notice that both sides wear different uniforms and have different insignia on the side of their aircraft. This war is very difficult to know whos who. The leaders of the radical muslims have stated that women, children, and older people do their jobs very well, which is loading themselves up with bombs and blowing themselves up hoping to take out a road guard or whatever. Pretty humane, huh? I think a real possibility did exist to get our men and women home sooner if not for the constant NON-Support of our troops by the radical left wing liberal loons whinning like babies who needs a passifier. I think they have done more to undermine, slander, and complain about this war, which has put our troops in harms way more than any member of Al Qaeda. You liberal media types are doing just what the enemy knew what you would do. Get a set of balls and get behind these fine young Americans who are doing their best to preserve our freedoms which you libers miss use everyday because you are so misinformed. Have you ever put your life on the line for something that isn't cheap and you believe strongly in? I don't doubt it, I know it.

When will politicians figure out that nation building is not in the job description of the United States Armed Forces? The most advanced, capable military in the world by far, reduced to not much more than an ad hoc police force? Outrageous. They don't train for it, and quite frankly, they're not very good at it (I say all of this, coming from a family with several service members). It is well past time to force the Iraqis to pull their heads out of the hot desert sand and take responsibility for their own safety. If they want support (as in training, supplies, or the occasional air strike), we should give it to them. But it should stop there.