How do you feel about U.S. troops pulling out of Iraq?

What is it you people don't understand about protecting this country? You think just because it's happening outside of the U.S. it shouldn't concern us. Think about how you sleep at night without worrying about a bomb exploding near by, or your visit to the grocery store and not have to worry about a suicide bomber. What you need to understand is when that happens in tyranny ruled countries, all the power wants is more power. You should be on your knees thanking the great men and women who sacrificed their life and families to protect you. Get off your high horse and see life as it really is, instead of your dream world.

Iraqis are REALLY shooting off fireworks to celebrate the fact that they no longer have to deal with an occupying nation. In reality, all Iraqis (even political radicals a.k.a. terrorists) want and HAVE WANTED democracy for quite some time. According to "Who Speaks for Islam? (What a Billion Muslims REALLY Think) by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, suicide bombings all over the world, not just in Iraq, are directly related to the occupation of a major world power. Before the occupation of Iraq, suicide bombings were virtually non-existent. I do not condone these suicide bombers in any way, shape, form, or style as the right thing to do; however they are more understandable when I realize that they are more like desperate messages telling unwanted guests they have overstayed their welcome than acts of "religious" conviction. Terrorists only use a religious angle to recruit and convince their forces, while on the flipside the majority are heavy alcoholics and have been known to visit brothels, porn shops, etc which is strictly against Muslim belief. Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds are all celebrating together on this issue, because big brother America is going to go push around and plunder someone else.

Skipster: you can repeat your pap about how our military in Iraq is protecting us from terror until you turn blue. Our military has done a good job with great courage, but they are not protecting us from terrorism by fighting in Iraq. It's just a silly proposition. The terrorists who struck us had nothing to do with Iraq, and if we are struck again the terrorists who do it could come from anywhere on the globe. Muslims live in every corner of the globe and radical Muslims live among them. Do you think they need Iraq from which to operate, and do you think that if Iraq becomes stable it will have any impact on terrorism? You are just living in a dream world. It's wonderful that you are so patriotic, but its stupid that you are so scared of terrorism that you buy into the neo-con crap about Iraq.

Hey derivative,

In response to your statement that "...suicide bombings all over the world, not just in Iraq, are directly related to the occupation of a major world power.", I have a question for you. Which evil, domineering, major world power occupies Indonesia? I happen to remember a massive suicide bombing in Bali in 2002 that took the lives of over 180 people, most of whom were tourists from Australia. Sounds to me like radical muslims trying to attack westerners for the sake of attacking westerners.

You are right. Bosnia and Kosovo cost million of dollars each year. For what... To what end. An idiot politician trying to please others.

What Iraqis are you talking about? I spoke to hundreds. How many have you spoken to?

Suicide bombings were non existent before Iraq?????? 9/11, Bali, Embassies in Africa should I continue...

Iraqis celebrate everything in a wild fashion. Weddings, joining the military, the elections.. It is the culture. Do not read your leftist views into it.

The simple fact is that we have not been attacked in the US or anywhere else but Iraq and Afghan since 9/11. It is indisputable. In the 90s we were hit once in NYC, and then again in Africa. Either Clinton was a complete idiot or Bush did something right. You choose because it is one or the other.

Besides the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, which Demo Scout has already pointed out above, the more important socio-political dynamic is that all these imperialistic, military invasion actions we've been engaging in for the past decade actually make us less safe as a nation. Our military intervention in the internal affairs of other sovreign nations has vastly increased the anti-american sentiment throughout the world and has provided great recruiting propaganda to the forces of Al Qaeda, Hamas and others, and has thereby made us LESS safe, not more.

You, and others on this blog seem to believe that we can somehow militarily defeat the terroristic forces which oppose us. By their very nature, this is impossible. All the nukes in our arsenal wouldn't be enough to wipe out the sentiment of hatred against America. Guns, planes and bombs cannot kill an ideology.

You can no more defeat a mud puddle with a stick. If you smack it hard enough you can splash it apart for a moment, but as soon as you turn your back, it will flow back together and still represent a "threat" to your nice clean shoes. On the other hand, if you find some seeds, maybe wheat, or perhaps carrots (to extend the metaphor), and you plant those in the mud puddle, after some time and additional care, and maybe adding some fertilizer (metaphorically that's foreign investment money once the situation is stabilized), eventually, instead of a "threat" you wind up with a "crop" which can be harvested, for the benefit of all concerned.

Oh, and by all means keep the stick ready if you need it, it might come in handy in case we're actually attacked.

MikeyMike,

While I admire your "Tao Te Ching" approach to explaining your point, I find a few faults with it. Are you implying that the U.S. should not "meddle" in the affairs of other countries? If so, what say you about the situation in Dafur? Maybe we should let the refugees figure it out on their own, no? Should we not have intervened in Europe, circa 1942-1945? I'm quite sure that the Jews, Poles, Slovaks, Gypsies, the mentally challenged and the physically handicapped of the period would have preferred that we maintained our international public image rather than help them out, right? That is what you are saying, isn't it?

Maybe we should have "planted carrots" in Europe instead.

Just wanted to say hooray first! The headline for this seed is wrong. We are not pulling out of Iraq, only out of the cities in Iraq. We are still going to be in the war zone for quite some time I fear!!!!

Disenchanted,

Not precisely. In WWII there was massive engagement by many other nations before we ever got involved. It took the shock of Pearl Harbor to move the congress past the resistance of the many who opposed our participation in the "european war" even though our allies, Great Britain, France and rest were begging us for help.

The situation in Darfur is a tragedy. Yes, there should be involvement. All civilized nations of the world should unite to condemn the heinous actions of the Sudanese government and their thugs, the Ganjaweed (yeah, I know that's mis-spelled, I did it on purpose).

The key difference is the need for unified opposition and international support of U.N. Peacekeeping forces in Darfur, as opposed to some international support, but in the end basically a unilateral invasion of one country (Iraq) by another country (The U.S.).

MikeyMike,

OK. Again, I do admire the fact that you have done your research, but I still have some concerns. It goes without saying that many other nations were in involved in WWII, but what of Italy or the Soviet Union? Are you actually saying that without the support of countries like these (remember that both countries initially sided with Adolf Hitler) we should not have intervened to stop the Holocaust or to liberate Europe? What of Vichy France? Should we have left them to the Nazis? Just curious.

Disenchanted,

I'm a bit confused by your question, since Italy, under Mussolini, was definitely part of the Axis powers, along with Austro-Hungary, but to the best of my knowledge the USSR was opposed to Hitler, especially since he tried to invade them. Maybe there's a period before that which I'm not familar with. And Vichy France had been conquered; there was still the resistance of course (which is what I was referring to as our French allies above), but as a country, they were done.

Now then, I'll do my best to address your question as an hypothetical. If Hitler, or any other modern day despot, is engaging in genocide, they should be stopped. The crisis in Darfur should be stopped. The genocide in Rwanda should have been stopped. The Killing Fields of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia should have been stopped. The Turkish massacre of the Armenians should have been stopped.

However, that's easier to say than to do. In Rwanda the evil happened so quickly there was hardly time for the international community to act. In Cambodia, the slaughter went on for years and no one apparently did anything. I was too young at the time it was happening to be aware, so I only know of the history, and yes most of that from the Mel Gibson movie, but something should have been done and it wasn't.

Why not? That's the crux of the matter. Why is international opinion almost universally opposed to the actions being perpetrated by the Sudanese government, but nothing much is actually DONE about it? As I see it, and feel free to debate me on this, it's because the United Nations has no enforcement power. They can pass resolutions, they can vote to condemn the actions of a particular dictator or government, but the U.N. as a political body has no power to enforce its will. They can only send guys in blue hats to provide medical relief to refugees.

Here's an idea, what if the U.N. forces were actually well armed, well funded, and could be authorized by, lets say a 2/3 vote, to go out and militarily stop some of these things? That would of course change the very nature of the functioning of the U.N. as a supra-national governing body. Whoa! Talk about a New World Order!! I don't think for a second that that'll ever happen, but it'd definitely change things.

All that aside, back to your question... What if there was no international support... What if there was not even any U.N.? What if there wasn't even an ounce of resistance to Hitler and all of Europe had simply rolled over to him? Should we have stepped up and stopped him from exterminating anyone he didn't happen to like? Yes, absolutely. The organized genocide enacted in the Final Solution which Hitler perpetrated against the Jews, Gypsies, blacks and others was intolerable. It had to be stopped. And in the end it was a noble thing that we got invloved in the war and defeated him.

A few interesting questions follow...

#1) Why did it take us so long to act at the time? If the attack on Pearl Harbor had not occurred to jolt us as a nation out of our isolationist complacency, how long would we have stood by and watched as Hitler conquered one European country after another? I guess until we perceived him to be a direct threat to ourselves.

That prompts question #2) Since Saddam Hussein was not a direct threat to our nation and since the genocidal acts he had perpetrated against the Kurds had taken place a decade previously, why then did we invade Iraq? To me it seems to be all about an over-compensation issue on Bush's part, if ya know what I mean...

And finally #3) Since the Sudanese government is not a threat to us here, will we ever actually do anything to stop what's going on there? Sadly, I doubt it, though we have apparently sent some funding to the government forces of local neighboring countries which we trust not to suck it up in personal corruption. Maybe that's the best we hope for at the present time.

Whaddyu think?

P.S. I've got to sign off now, but I'll check back in tomorrow...

MikeyMike,

Many of your questions are quite valid, but I will start first (of course) with a question in your last post regarding the Soviet Union.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Act was signed in the summer of 1939 by Germany and the USSR, and was essentially a non-aggression pact between the two nations. The pact went unbroken for the better part of two years, until being broken by the invasion of the USSR by the Nazis.

To answer your question about why we didn't act until after the attack on Pearl Harbor, I couldn't tell you, as I wasn't alive then. I cannot say unequivocally what it was that caused FDR to sit on the sidelines while the rest of the world was embroiled in a conflict of such proportions. It does seem interesting to me that his (Democratic) administration has been accused of many of the same things that have harangued the Bush administration (i.e. waiting to act until attacked here at home...excessive use of force against countries not directly involved in the attack, etc.), however, mostly praise is lauded upon FDR while GW Bush is widely renounced for doing the same.

In response to question #2, I cannot speak for Mr. Bush. I do not see how the length of time (a decade) has much to do with Mr. Bush, as the incident in question occurred 12 years before his being elected. That said, after the Japanese invaded China in 1937 (later that year committing the "Rape of Nanking"), should we have turned a blind eye to those atrocities because they had occurred half a decade before?

To answer your questions about the UN...I really have to take pause. What an empty international legislative body we have in them. I can't, in good conscience, defend anything that the UN does (or doesn't) do. In my opinion, they are wasting our money and very valuable real estate in New York. They aren't worth the time I have spent writing about them.

As for your third question, I really wish I knew when someone (anyone) would stop the genocide there. Certainly, sending money to other overtly corrupt African nations isn't the answer (see: Ethiopia, Somalia, Rwanda, etc.)., and UN peace-keepers will do nothing at all, as they have been immasculated by the very mission that sent them there. I am wondering when the Chinese will stop funding the conflict over there. As it stands, we (the American public) will probably never know the full truth, as much of our national debt is owned by China, and I doubt that the current administration wants to rock that boat too much right now.

I hope this answers the questions you asked of me. I look forward to your response tomorrow.

Thanks for the clarification re: Germany and the USSR.

The reason I mentioned the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein against the Kurds in reference to Bush, is that many argue that that event is justification for our invasion of Iraq. The argument seems to go something like, "OK, OK, so he didn't have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, but look what he did to the Kurds! He used poison gas! That's a weapon of mass destruction! We had to take him out. And if you dare to disagree, then you're an unpatriotic spineless pinko commie etc., etc." None of which I find convincing in the least. Especially the Kurdish issue. The gassing of the Kurds, a truly horrific incident, which, as you clearly pointed out, occurred 12 years before the invasion, is an empty excuse for invading another country. It'd be like if we decided, all of a sudden, to invade Rwanda tomorrow, because we don't want another wave of machete attacks to happen. Not our job.

Similar scenario with the Rape of Nanking incident. We didn't engage with Japan during WWII to avenge the horrors that had been perpetrated upon China in 1938, we attacked Japan because they blatantly attacked us first, and they seemed hell bent on continuing their expansion throughout the Pacific, so we stopped 'em. But it wasn't Nanking that got us into it, it was Pearl Harbor.

So, to summarize, I guess if the Sudanese government (or anyone who kind of looks like them) mounts a direct attack on U.S. buildings, then we'll go get 'em. Yeee-Haw!

Now here's a question for you. As WWII was drawing to a close and we had basically beaten back the Japanese to within their own borders, after taking back Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal and all the rest of those islands, the question remained, will they re-emerge as an international threat? Apparently, as I understand it, the answer was yes. Their imperialistic will seemed unabated. Therefore, we faced the necessity of taking the fight all the way into Tokyo, at an inevitable cost of thousands more American troops as well as Japanese lives, both armed and civilian. Instead, we (or to be more specific our political and miltary leaders) decided to do what no other nation had done before or has ever done since, that is, drop atomic weapons on civilian cities, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children. And apparently, one wasn't enough. It took a second bomb, and thousands more innocents killed, to finally break Hirohito's will and prompt a surrender.

So, here's the question: Was the use of the atomic bombs justified? Since many civilians would have likely been killed in a land invasion, was it OK to target them directly? Secondly, and this is of course purely hypothetical, if the Japanese had refused to surrender, even after losing two entire cities, should we have continued to drop more bombs, taking out Osaka, and eventually Tokyo?

And now the real kicker: since we are the only nation that has ever actually used Atomic weapons in war, and killed thousands of civilians in the process, where the heck do we get off in lecturing other nations, such as Iran, about whether or not they have the right to develop nuclear technology? What's up with that? Do as I say, not as I do? Sounds like bad parenting to me, and again, NOT OUR JOB.

Which finally brings me back to my earlier question, which you didn't really answer, so I'll rephrase it. Should the U.N. be empowered to enforce, militarily if necessary, it's collective will upon it's member nations?

I agree it should have happened sooner, but first we should have bombed them back to a flat desert of a country with no reg heads left standing.

Really? "Bomb them back to a flat desert of a country with no reg(sic) heads left standing"

Seriously? That's how you think? Now you're just going full-retard....

We should have fought this as we did WWII and we would have been done a long time ago. We seem to have decided that to fight a war that is politicaly correct is the way to go. I am afraid that the population of the region will go back to fighting among themselves, as soon as we pull out. The terriost will then rebuild their forces and we will again, at some point be defending a nation that does not want us there and the merry-go-round continues.

I was thinking the same thing. Notice the quotes were from people who didn't want us there in the story.

Of course our military deserves a well done. They always do what is expected of them. But what have we won? If you think that 9-11 was the reason for war in Iraq then bear in mind that we lost more soldiers and had far, far more seriously wounded than the people we lost on 9-11, and there was no connection between Iraq and 9-11. We could stay in Iraq keeping the peace for another five years and when we leave the risks will be the same. It doesn't pay to rehash all the arguments. Just know that history will record that this war was a huge strategic blunder and a tragic mistake for our troops and our country.

Demo,

You are absolutely incorrect concerning 9-11.  While the individual actors may not have come from Iraq, the radical ideology is embedded there.  We did not go to war with Iraq because of 9-11 but we did remove a tirant as well as several thousand extremists who wish nothing more than for the fall of the USA. 

PS: I read through your posts on this page and noticed that you said you lived through WWII, Korea and Vietnam.  The biggest thing that stood out to me was that you never served during these conflicts.  I just wonder why you continue to stand on the sidelines and gripe about how much better you could do it.  But I guess none of the people in those conflicts needed to be dealt with either???

Radical ideology is embedded everywhere, and nowhere can it ever be defeated with guns and bombs.

There is however, a non-military solution, see my comments in 1.6 above.

ROTFL-copter

Everyone knows he had wmd back then, no one is disputing that. But it is also proven that they were destroyed after the first gulf war. Nice straw-man argument though.

No one is talking bad about our military, just the idiots in power who sent them there. Our men in uniform did a tremendous job there, it was just a no win situation for the US.

these people will be our enemies in a short period of time. we tried to shove democracy down their throats. the people have to want freedom in order for it to happen. Saddam was a bad leader..we all know that, but for us to sustain a 6 year war, just to remove a dictator is ridiculous, and history will show us that.

War should alwways be a last resort...period! our young men in uniform deserve better leadership in these decisions. I pray we do now.

The WMD we were supposed to be finding was the kind that makes a nuclear mushroom cloud, remember, Condi said "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Skipster was in Greece in 1988, where he learned about poison gas used on the Kurds. Well, everyone else knew about it too, Skipster. But that was 1988. Has it occurred to you that G. W. Bush went to war in Iraq in 2003, 15 years later. In 15 years Saddam had not used poison gas on us or on anyone else, and he had not given any to terrorists, and after the gulf war we made him get rid of his stores of it, and the weapons inspectors confirmed that he did, but the Bushies didn't want to believe it. So several hundred thousand people died because George Bush thought it would be a good idea to start a war. There were lots of reasons why Saddam deserved to die but most of those other Iraqi civilians did not and neither did a single one of our troops. And if George and the boys went to war just for the oil, and only they know, then they are indeed war criminals.

You are correct on one statement. "Time will tell" Evedently you don't understand the Military, by your statement, " No one is talking about our military, Just the idiots in power that sent them there." When you sign up for the military you are told and given a form that tells you you will be going into a war zone if necessary and it could result in being killed in action. To make a statement, as you did, is showing you of the lesser of the greatest people of this country. You take it for granted the peace and freedom we have in America was handed to us on a Silver Platter. Sorry to burst your bubble but it doesn't happen that way and never has. What we have now was earned by our hard working men and women and our great Military. As far as I am concerned, anyone that thinks our men and women shouldn't have been there is nothing but a true coward.

Demo Scout. You evidently don't understand WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) You also don't keep up with happenings abroad. Saddam, in 2003 had a complete chemical underground led by Chemical Ali, which meant he was growing stronger. You should get your factual information before posting messages. Leaders like Saddam are in power and always want more power and don't care about the lives they take to get it.

Skipster: you are really arrogant to lecture us about how we don't understand the sacrifices our military make to protect our country and how it is necessary for patriots to understand that our freedom needs to be protected. How do you know we don't appreciate that, just because we don't agree with your pro-war position? I lived through World War II, Korea, and Vietnam and I have seen wars we had to fight and wars we should not have fought. So don't give me any of your critique about how I don't get it. Maybe you should ponder that we think you are dense not to realize that in a democracy the most important basic way to protect our freedom is to speak up and dissent when we are being giverned by idiots who have no respect for other nations, other people, the rule of law, or life itself when they send our young troops to die for a stupid reason. Maybe we feel that it is you who aren't using your head and don't understand how this country works. Maybe you should stop flag waving so much and take time to think about what that flag means. One of the best things it means is that we are free to speak our minds and to dissent and to want to make our country better by correcting its mistakes. You think we are cowards if we object to the war in Iraq. Well we think you are a jingoistic nationalistic moron for falling for the propaganda of the Bush administration. If you don't know the words look them up.

demo scout you have successfully proven that you are an uninformed dolt. I am pretty sure you have never volunteered to put your very life, limbs, and safety on the line for millions of people you have never met (as I, my father, my uncle, and my cousin - who just returned from Afganistan last week - have for the past 40 years). Instead you stand on the backs of us who have made this sacrifice to complain. If you took the time to actually learn a little about the military history of the Iraq/Iran/Afghan region you will see that this has been a concern of the American military for a lot longer than 2003. The powers inside that region (which really knows no borders) that have the single minded goal to destroy us and harm us in every way possible had the ability to create a region wide network (again, no borders and 20 years to organize) to facilitate not one, but two attacks on the US. Going into Iraq and creating a "presence" there for six years has disrupted that network, has kept them disorganized, and has split their focus from being able to structure yet another attack on us. It is not about oil as you anti-war hippies all like to fall back on - and it never has been. It is about preventing another horrible attack by these powers designed to maim, injure, and kill you, your wife, your kids, you family, and your loved ones. That doesn't make me "pro-war" (which is the most moronic word I have ever heard come out of anyone's mouth) - it makes me smart enough to learn from history and try to keep it from repeating itself. So please cease casting aspersions upon the military and making such mendacious claims.

Dude,

Out military are heros. The politicans are idiots. We gave Saddam the bio and chem weapons to fight Iran. We always start the trouble and then expect our heros to bail us out. Lets bring ALL the soldiers home from every non us site. Lets have them protect our borders and our citizens, not others. Let the other countries spend $ to protect themselves. Emperilism odes not work and it just pisses off everyone outside the US. Leave the other countries to sort out their own messes. No more intrusion into other peoples business then they wont hate us so much. Leave their resouces to them and stop stealing them, then we will have peace. Our policies only inflame the hatred of the American. Have you traveled abroad lately. Its not nice to be spit at by every car that drives by, once they recognize you as an american. dam, we should all be ashamed of our global bully tactics. Its just plain ignorant.

Coleslaw,

The mud doesn't go away just because you stir it around.

See my comments in 1.6 above.

so, with Obama building up massive forces in Afhghanistan (twice as many as we had in Iraq) what do you think the outcome will be? He didn't tell you he was going to bring them home so he could redeploy them into a bigger war did he? Sad he was so mis-leading, but not at all surprising at this rate. So now this is Obama's war and he will get the blame for thousands killed and lives destroyed. He is already rich and will only gain more monetary benefit from all of this. Sad we had a chance to turn and do the right thing, and now a bigger war.

I agree to a large extent with you - but please explain to me how we can now justify putting twice as many troops into Afghanistan? You do realize that Obama is waging a war in Afghanistan don't you? The foreign policy of the last admin had issue's, but let's not turn a blind eye to what the current admin is doing with foreign policy. Where is the justification and outrage for a new war in Afghanistan?

I can explain it to you BizProdigy. Afghanistan is where we should have been focused all this time. THAT is where the people who masterminded 9/11 were all the time. Now they are zipping in and out of Pakistan and Afghanistan. We should have stayed out of Iraq and focused on what needed to be done in Afghanistan. That is what Obama is doing. Trying to fix the mess that was made after Bush took his eye off the ball to go "liberate" the Iraqis. Because of all the troops being diverted to Iraq by Bush we missed the opportunity to capture or kill those who attacked us. Afghanistan is a much bigger issue for us than Iraq ever was. For the record, Obama always said the main focus should be on Afghanistan...maybe you just weren't paying attention or only heard the things you wanted to hear. He said we needed to be out of Iraq and that the main focus should be on taking care of business with Afghanistan (and Pakistan since Al Qaida just moves back and forth across the border).

We blame him because he is a natural. The worst president we have ever had. But now he is gone and we do have our man in power. What a delightful difference---a president at the wheel with his eyes open and his brain engaged. Eat you heart out Craig you only have 71/2 more years to whine.

Your man is now waging a war that is twice the size of Iraq. I am surprised I don't see / hear any of the people asking for our troops to come home making an issue of this. We are building up a troop prescence that is twice the size of what we had in Iraq as we speak. No country has ever waged a successful campaign in Afghanistan and what are we even there for? I truly do wonder why no one is talking about this - check out MSNBC news feeds -- they are littered with soldiers in fire-fights in the mountains of Afghanistan and you think the troops are coming home?

I agree with you 100%. I have a son-in-law that was in Iraq for 2 terms. He has always and still says that the media only reports the bad news. He brought back pictures of the new Iraq and that is enough proof to me. New Roads, New Schools, without any mention of Saddam in the textbooks, telephones available to everyone, Bridges rebuilt, so all of the left-sided Dems go ahead and think your left sided way. You live a life with blinders and earplugs so you will never know the truth. You vote out of hate and that is what got Hitler elected. You get what you ask for in this life. Just remember this. There is a consquence for everything you do in life. This past Presidential nomination will tell it all.

have two friends that stated the same thing. They said they truly are handicapped with the media with them - war is not fair, it's ugly and the lowest common denominator, but is the only answer at times. They said they can actually fight when the media is not there, but when they are around they have to spend a lot of time and man power keeping the reporters safe and at times putting the soldiers in even more harms way.

Well said Skipster - well said.

So, without the spotlight of the media we should just allow our boys to run wild like pit bulls off the chain? As Shakespeare wrote 400 hundred years ago, "Cry Havoc! and let slip the dogs of war."

Have you forgotten Al Graib prison? Or to go back to Viet Nam, the masscre at My Lai? In WWII, the firebombing of Dresden?

Maybe you'd just rather not know about all those ugly things, so long as we "win". Well, to me, winning at the cost of sacrificing the ideals our country is supposed to represent is no win at all.

JonDie. You are a true coward to make a statement that Bush killed more people. I could easily say Obama is killing more people because the suicide rate in America is drastically up. But that's too easy. You are just a hatefull person and vote that way, which means you know nothing of importance.

Skip-

Actually, according to Johns Hopkins, the suicide rate in whites has been rising by .7% since 1999 (2.7% men, 3.9% women from 1999-2005). Additional jumps in 2009 can be attributed to the crashed economy--recall that this occurred before Obama was elected.

A lot of Iraq civilians have died since 2003. You cannot bomb a building in city without seriously wounding or killing people for some distance around the blast. The Bush Administration's estimates put it at about 30,000, but this was based on emergency room and morgue reports--not the most reliable. An independant study in 2006 estimated that Iraqi civilian deaths might actually have exceeded 650,000.

Who knows what the actual number is. Certainly many civilian deaths were not the direct result of American fire, rather they were the result of insurgent attacks and uncontrolled disease due to the destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure. However, all of this was a direct product of the invasion. We broke it. We own it.

Was it really worth all of this--the huge economic costs, Iraqi deaths, American deaths, loss of international stature, just to take out a marginalized two-bit dictator?

JonDie,

You must either be very young and impressionable, believing all that your teachers (most of whom have never lifted a finger in defense of anything other than their own interests) tell you, or you are just a moronic, cowardly lemming.

Go put your Che Guevara t-shirt on and head back to school, junior. You wouldn't want to be late to your liberal indoctrination class, would you?

Tom: thanks for your advice. But my opinion is just as good as yours. Did you learn anything while you were in Iraq about WMD's that didn't exist? Did you learn whether we went there to get our hands on their oil? Did you learn whether the planning for this misbegotten war was so screwed up that there was virtually no thought given to securing the country after the initial mililtary combat phase was over? Did you learn whether there was no Al Quaida presence there until after we arrived? Did you learn anything about the centuries old conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslims? (Our president knew nothing about that when he started the war.) Did you learn whether experts on the region warned that there would be huge conflict over political power after Saddam was removed and the Bushies ignored the warning? Did you learn whether our troop committment to Iraq prevented us from having sufficient troops in Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden and wipe out Al Quaida and the Taliban? Did you learn how many of our G.I.s in Iraq think the war was a screwed up mistake? Did you learn why the Pentagon didn't give our troops good body armour or mine resistant vehicles? It doesn't make much sense to start a war to blow up bridges and roads just to rebuild them. Millions upon millions of people here and around the world told the blockhead President Bush and his neo-con war party that the war would be a terrible error, but he had his mind set on it. I will not shut up, and neither will the rest of us, because we don't want such a miserable mistake to happen again. Your feeling that the Iraqis will need our help for many years to come only underscores the point that we should never have started the war in the first place. But if they cannot find their own stability it is not our responsibility to stay there and keep their country together for them.