I fear for the future if Kerry gets elected.

I'm with those who think Kerry's shot himself in the foot yet again. He's been told to stop talking about Vietnam, so what does he do? He starts talking about Iraq as if it were Vietnam.

But come to think of it, that "cut and run" stuff worked so well for McGovern didn't it?

While I have issues woth some of the tactics and strategy in the misnamed War on Terror, Dubya is fighting it.
We have no evidence to base a belief that Kerry would. While it is possible that we can lose this war by fighting it, it's a certainty that we will lose if the enemy is the only one fighting.
Why is this so hard to understand?

'The reason Iraq was an important front in the war on terror wasn't just the belief that there were weapons of mass destruction and only partially hinged on the support that Hussein was providing terrorists.'

Bot both of these motives for war have been debunked. Al Qaeda has no relationship with Saddam. Infact, Osama has showed his unwillingness to work with Saddam's SECULAR regim, by funding Kurdish rebels.

'The reason Iraq was important is because it provided us with quite possibly the best place in the Middle East to begin reforms that had to be brought by an outside agency.'

In other words, force the Middle East to comply with Western thinking.

'And the only way to change the culture of suicide bombers and jihad is to see liberalism flourish throughout the region.'

This isnt happening. Anti Western thinking is rife in Iraq, and i cant say i dont see why. When you kids are blown up in the war between the coalition and the ever rising insurgency, you would feel bitter. This kind of fighting only makes people more angry.

Re: WMD
As a reason to go to war, this hasn't been debunked. Although he didn't turn out to have the weapons that we thought he did, the reason was still there when we took steps. In what way has that been debunked?

Re: Al Quaeda
Who mentioned Al Quaeda? I didn't. What I said was his support for terrorists, which is unquestioned. He did fund and seek to fun terrorist operation and had plans to fun terrorist operations against the United States (according to Soviet intelligence). The record does show meetings between high ranking officials of Saddam's government and Al Quaeda, for that matter, although there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11. I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but there most certainly was a connection between Hussein and terrorists.

re: Forcing the Middle East...
You know what, I don't have a problem with that. When the security of our nations are threatened by oppressive theocrats who have no qualms with exporting violence beyond their borders, then change needs to come. If the leaders of the Middle East won't make the changes voluntarily, then it behooves us to make the changes in a more pointed manner. I would rather it happened in a friendlier, peace-love-and-happiness way, but I have no issue with doing it this way.

re: This isn't happening
First, you are over pessimistic about Iraq and would prefer to see every bad thing that happens and ignore anything that might be good. I've never once seen you recognize a good thing that happens in Iraq. And the fact is that the resistance is still relatively light.

Second, do you imagine that this happens over such a short amount of time that we can already declare a failure? Sorry, I don't see it that way; I didn't support this effort to throw away my hopes just because things didn't go quite as easy as I'd hoped. As soon as the government toppled, I started telling people that the hard part was just about to begin. We're still working through it and we have a long way to go, but I don't see it as the doom and gloom scenario that you do.

Third, the kind of fighting that makes me angry involves planes being run into buildings, taking hundreds of children hostage with the intent of killing them when your unreasonable demands aren't met, and bombing train stations in Madrid. I could go on, but I think you see my point.

I don't think that it is incumbent upon us to always worry about making others angry; at times it is incumbent on us to act in our own best interest, to defuse situations as we can, and to re-build to the best of our ability.

'What I said was his support for terrorists, which is unquestioned.'

I think its very questioned. Which attacks on the US did he fund?

'The record does show meetings between high ranking officials of Saddam's government and Al Quaeda, for that matter, although there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11. '

This actually isnt true. Osama tried to get in touch with Saddam in an effort to establish training camps in Iraq. Saddam didnt even reply. Its a known fact Al Qaeda's fundamentalism is in direct opposition to Saddam's old secular Ba'ath party.

'In what way has that been debunked?'

Its been debunked as Saddam's regime had no wmd's, and the 'evidence' suggesting he did has all proven to shady. For example, satellite photos of so called nuclear sites that turned out to be abandoned factories. The 'reason' was a false premise.

'First, you are over pessimistic about Iraq and would prefer to see every bad thing that happens and ignore anything that might be good. '

To retort, i could just call you optimistic and switch 'bad' to 'good' and vice versa. Like this:

'First, you are over optimistic about Iraq and would prefer to see every good thing that happens and ignore anything that might be bad. '

I think i have reason to be pessimistic. The insurgency is rising, everyday Iraqi's are turning against the US, and since Bush's 'bring them on' comment...812 US soldiers have died and over 6000 have been injured.

'And the fact is that the resistance is still relatively light.'

Way to play it down. I dont see how you can say that. Baghdad and Basra are barely under control, let alone Fallujah. Contractors are virtually kidnapped at will.

'Second, do you imagine that this happens over such a short amount of time that we can already declare a failure?'

Not at all, i didnt suggest this. What im saying is, when/if will the coalition pull out? The thing is Z, things arnt getting better in Iraq. I dont see the possibility of a sudden and massive turnaround.

'Third, the kind of fighting that makes me angry involves planes being run into buildings, taking hundreds of children hostage with the intent of killing them when your unreasonable demands aren't met, and bombing train stations in Madrid.'

This makes me angry as well. It also makes me angry when people say 'we are winning the war on terror' when events like this happen on a increasingly regular basis.

FC: You are factually wrong on several points.

1) "I think its very questioned. Which attacks on the US did he fund?"

Z never said that Hussein "funded" terrorists, and neither did President Bush. It is a well known fact, for instance, that Hussein gave moeny to the families of many suicide bombers. This is just one example. There are numerous others.

2) "Its a known fact Al Qaeda's fundamentalism is in direct opposition to Saddam's old secular Ba'ath party."

Sorry, but you are wrong again. Ever heard "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Read the 9/11 Commission report. This commission was designed and an anti-Bush witch hunt and even it concluded that there were numerou ties between Hussein and Al Qaeda. Note that these ties were not "operational" in nature, but the ties were there.

3) "Its been debunked as Saddam's regime had no wmd's..."

It is still a fact that prior to the war, Hussein had been inviolation of 14 UN resolutions concerning the development of WMDs. We could not prove that he had them, but he could not prove, despite the UN resolutions requiring him to provide this proof, that he didn't. We didn't go to war because he had them, we went to war to prevent him from getting or, more importantly, using them. You should go back and read the President's speeches from the time if you are still unclear about this.

4) "...812 US soldiers have died and over 6000 have been injured."

Compared to the losses in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, or pretty-much any other campaign, I'd say that the US forces are doing an outstanding job. No major military campaign (especially on this scale) has ever been conducted with as little loss of life as this one.

5) "...when/if will the coalition pull out?"

As soon as possible but not so soon as to scuttle the current effort. Z said that pretty clearly in his post.

6) "...things arnt getting better in Iraq."

Actually, they are. Services are being restored, strides toward a free market are being made, average citizens are becomming involved in the political process, and preparations for free elections are under way. All of this qualifies as better.

7) "In other words, force the Middle East to comply with Western thinking."

Absolutely. I am in agreement with Z on this one. This war was brought to us, we didn't bring it to them. We forced Germany and Japan to "comply with Western thinking" after WWII, didn't we? That little endeavor worked out pretty freakin' well, didn't it?

'Z never said that Hussein "funded" terrorists, and neither did President Bush. It is a well known fact, for instance, that Hussein gave moeny to the families of many suicide bombers. This is just one example. There are numerous others.'

You say ''well known fact.'' What information makes this a ''well known fact'' Jerry?

'Sorry, but you are wrong again. '

I am correct. If you knew anything about the policies of Saddam, and compared them to the Islamic fundamentalism of Al Qaeda, you would know this. Saddam was barely even a practising Muslim. Iraq was a secular nation. Al Qaeda is a wahabist organisation, which is an extreme form of Sunni fundamentalism.

'This commission was designed and an anti-Bush witch hunt and even it concluded that there were numerou ties between Hussein and Al Qaeda.'

Name them. Saddam and Al Qaeda didnt have a collaborative relationship. Maybe you should read the 9/11 commission's report, as it explicitly stated this.

'You should go back and read the President's speeches from the time if you are still unclear about this.'

You dont have to take my word for this argument. This war was based on false premises. Since you asked me to look back at comments made at the time....care to explain these?

''Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons''

George Bush, US President 18 March, 2003

''Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.''

Dick Cheney

''Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.''

George Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002

"25,000 liters of anthrax ... 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ... materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent ... upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents ... several mobile biological weapons labs ... thousands of Iraqi security personnel ... at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors."

George Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

''We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.''

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003

''We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.''

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003

Hows this for ya?
This is the tip of the iceberg, and they prove your comment to be factually wrong.

'Compared to the losses in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, or pretty-much any other campaign'

I think this comparison is a little off, dont you?

'All of this qualifies as better.'

And the rising insurgency, increased terrorism, Iraqi civilian angst at the US military, increasing death tolls on all sides, no Democracy yet existing......

'Absolutely. I am in agreement with Z on this one. This war was brought to us'

Jerry, if you are talking about Islamic Fundamentalism, i agree with you. This is a worldwide threat that must be checked. If you are talking about Iraq, i disagree, for stated reasons.

'We forced Germany and Japan to "comply with Western thinking" after WWII, didn't we? That little endeavor worked out pretty freakin' well, didn't it?'

I was merely asking a question to confirm Z's thinking.

FC: You have a tremendous capability to regurgitate quotes and a profound inability to actually understand them. You should work on that.

1) "Well know facts" are those facts that heve been widely reported in reputable sources. Just because you are not aware of them does not make them untrue.

2) "Saddam and Al Quaeda didn't have a collaborative relationship." I just explained this to you. Let me try again. You are correct that Hussein and Al Qaeda did not have a "collaborative" relationship. I already said this, except that I used the term "operational" because this is the term that the 9/11 commissions used. However, Hussein and Al Quaeda did have diplomatic ties. The 9/11 commission confirmed this, too. Both Hussein and Al Quaeda had a common enemy that they hated more than they hated each other: the United States. They had begun to communicate with one another and so there was a significant possibility (more likely probability) that closer ties would have grown. The concern was that Hussein would obtain a nuclear weapon and then give it to Al Quaeda for use against the US. This was a possibility that the 9/11 confirmed.

3) As to the quotes regarding WMD, you and I have alreadt discussed this at length on this site. Since you still don't understand I will try to explain it to you again. Hussein, after the first Gulf War, claimed to have in his possession certain items related to WMD. As part of the cease fire agreement he was to get rid of these items and make full accounting of the disposal. he refused to do this. He said that he had gotten rid of them, but he never offered the required proof and he also kicked the inspectors out of the country for four years during which the intelligence sources of several countries, including the Russia, believed that he was continuing development. President Bush stated very clearly during the build-up that an Iraq with WMD was a situation that we neede to prevent. We demanded that Hussein either make full accounting in accordance with the cease fire agreement and the 14 UN resolutions or face the consequences. He refused. Yes, we believed that he did have WMD and this turned out to be false, but one of the eight stated reasons for going to war was to discover what happened to the WMDs that Mi>Husseing admitted to having after the first Gulf war, dispose of any that we could find, and put an end to any programs for developing WMDs that we could find. Not finding and WMD does not change the fact that Hussein was in violation of the cease fire agreement and the 14 UN resolutions, nor does it invalidate the other seven stated reasons for going to war.

4) No, I don't beleve my comparison to previous wars is off at all. First, the opponents of the war are constantly comparing Iraq to Vietnam, so it is fair for me to do so. Second, my point was a very simple one: the number of US soldiers lost in this campaign is minimal. As a veteran myself I am not unempathetic to the losses that we have taken, but the historical perspective is important, valid, and correct.

5) "And the rising insurgency, increased terrorism, Iraqi civilian angst at the US military, increasing death tolls on all sides, no Democracy yet existing..." Democracy isn't built over night. It is unrealistic for you to say that things are going "bad" because one does not exist yet. As to the other things, I never said that the situation was perfect but, as Z pointed out, you are focusing on the bad without weighing the good. Hussein's regime was one of the most brutal in modern times and his fall brought an end to innumerable attrocities. People in that country are experiencing a greater level of freedom than they have in decades. The simple truth is that the march toward democracy is continuing and the overall situation is getting better.

6) "If you are talking about Iraq, i disagree, for stated reasons." This is the core of our disagreement. I believe that Iraq is part of the overarching War on Terrorism for the reasons that Z stated. Not because Iraq was responsible for any given terrorist attack against the US, but becuase Islamic terrorism is a byproduct of the repressive dictatorships that define that region. President Bush is trying to combat terrorism at the source. The hope is that by liberalizing the region the root causes of terrorism will disappear. Will it work? Only time will tell. What I do know is that this change of focus, from terrorism being a law enforcement action against small groups to a larger War against a larger enemy with deeper problems, can't do any worse than the previous approach, which failed completely, and has the potential to succeed. I, for one, am willing to see it through.

7) "I was merely asking a question to confirm Z's thinking." I understand this. I was merely giving my response to confirm mine.

'FC: You have a tremendous capability to regurgitate quotes and a profound inability to actually understand them.'

What? Try actually READING the quotes. I purposefully posted these particular quotes as there is nothing ambigious about them. You claimed that if i looked at speeches from the time i would 'understand.' And now you cant defend what your chosen candidate and his candidate said to mislead the American people into backing this war.

' "Well know facts" are those facts that heve been widely reported in reputable sources.'

Like the fact Hitler and the Nazi party were right wing?

'However, Hussein and Al Quaeda did have diplomatic ties.'

It never confirmed this. It confirmed Al Qaeda supported Kurdish rebels fighting the Iraqi state, and once tried to get in touch with Saddam, who never replied.

'The concern was that Hussein would obtain a nuclear weapon and then give it to Al Quaeda for use against the US'

Unsupported scaremongering.

'We demanded that Hussein either make full accounting in accordance with the cease fire agreement and the 14 UN resolutions or face the consequences. '

Yes, so the US stopped the UN weapons inspectors doing their job and invaded a country hastily, without UN backing. They failed to do the job UN weapons inspectors could of failed to do.

'No, I don't beleve my comparison to previous wars is off at all. First, the opponents of the war are constantly comparing Iraq to Vietnam, so it is fair for me to do so.'

I strongly oppose people doing this, as i see major differences. I never did this, so its a red herring.

'Democracy isn't built over night. It is unrealistic for you to say that things are going "bad" because one does not exist yet.'

And its unrealistic to say things are going ''good'' because less military personal have died than in WW2 and Vietnam. On the scale of things, they are BAD.

'I never said that the situation was perfect but, as Z pointed out, you are focusing on the bad without weighing the good. '

As i pointed out, you are focusing on the fact Saddam is gone, and the US has set up a fragile government...without weighing the substantial bad points.

'but becuase Islamic terrorism is a byproduct of the repressive dictatorships that define that region. '

And NOW there is a new wave of Islamic terrorism that is a byproduct of this invasion!

'President Bush is trying to combat terrorism at the source. '

The phrase id use is...''Using a bazooka to kill a fly.'' My disagreement lies with how Bush thinks terrorism should be thought. I personally think the approach needs to be more surgical. Certainly not involving invasions of sovreign nations with no links to the terrorists at hand.

FC:

1) "I purposefully posted these particular quotes as there is nothing ambigious about them." I never said that any of your quotes were ambiguous, I said that ou didn't understand the facts that you were quoting. I don't understand what I am talking about then you merely underscore my point.

2) "It never confirmed this." I will refer you to the links that Nathan provided and let you figure out on your own exactly why this is false.

3) "Unsupported scaremongering." Incorrect. My statements were neither unsupported nor scaremongering. It is a fact that Islamic terrorists have been attacking the US, its citizens, and its interests for decades. It is a fact that Hussein considered the US his enemy. It is a fact that Hussein once tried to assassinate The elder President Bush. It is a fact that Hussein had at one time been actively seeking WMDs. It is a fact that Hussein had diplomatic ties to numerous terrorist organizations including Al Quaeda. As Persident Bush eloquently stated, the time to act was before New York became a mushroom cloud. You may disagree with the choice of action but you are naive if you believe that this was not only a strong possibility, but something that both Hussein and Al Quaeda would have reveled in.

4) "Yes, so the US stopped the UN weapons inspectors doing their job and invaded a country hastily..." This is something that we have discussed before and it is increasingly obvious that we are not going to agree. Hussein had been given 12 years and 14 UN resolutions to come clean. I do not believe that this constitutes "hasty" at all. In fact, I believe that action was long overdue. The normal response to this assertion is that Bush didn't give the inspectors enough time once Hussein let them back in. I disagree on this point, too. I belive that Hussein letting the inspectors back in was just another delaying tactic and that he had no intention of coming clean.

5) "And its unrealistic to say things are going 'good' because less military personal have died than in WW2 and Vietnam." I did not base my assessment of the success or failure of the operation based solely on the casualty rate. Please read my comments again and also the links that Nathan provided for additional reasons why I believe that things are getting better. Additionally, please note that I also stated that I believe that things are not perfect and that I have been openly critical of some of the things that I believe have gone wrong.

6) "As i pointed out, you are focusing on the fact Saddam is gone, and the US has set up a fragile government...without weighing the substantial bad points." Incorrect. I am neither focusing solely on the fact that Hussein is gone nor am I ignoring the things that have gone wrong. Please see my previous statement.

7) "And NOW there is a new wave of Islamic terrorism that is a byproduct of this invasion!" Of course there is. There always were certain elements that did not want the US effort to succeed. It would be naive to believe that there would not be some level of resistance. Admittedly, the Bush administration underestimated the level of resistance, but this is the nature of war. I claim that the effort is failing simply because there is resistance to it is intellectually dishonest. A more accurate assertion can be made to the contrary. It has been postulated that the closer to success we become the more desperate those opposed to democracy will become. There is ample evidence that this is exactly what is happening.

8) "I personally think the approach needs to be more surgical." You are welcome to think this this all that you want just as I am welcome to disagree. God willing, Bush will win the election in November and we will have an opportunity to see if he is right.

'I said that ou didn't understand the facts that you were quoting.'

The facts? Every quote i used was un-factual, including specific claims to the quanity of Saddams 'WMD's,' and the 'no doubt' comments made by Bush and Cheney in regards to Saddam's non existant program.

'It is a fact that Hussein considered the US his enemy. '

And Bush considered Iraq to be his friend? Please, this is a 2 way thing here. The point is, Saddam didnt have the means, or quite possibly the will to attack the US.

' It is a fact that Hussein had at one time been actively seeking WMDs. '

And they were gave to him by the US government.

'It is a fact that Hussein had diplomatic ties to numerous terrorist organizations including Al Quaeda.'

Incorrect. This has been PROVEN to be wrong, and i find it bizarre that people still stick to this story. Al Qaeda and Saddam had NO collaborative links.

'As Persident Bush eloquently stated, the time to act was before New York became a mushroom cloud.'

Remember what i said about scaremongering?

'This is something that we have discussed before and it is increasingly obvious that we are not going to agree.'

Ok, so I'll end that right there. UN inspectors had unrestricted access for a few months prior to the invasion. The logic here is - Saddam cant prove he DOESNT have any WMD's, so lets attack him anyway.

'Please read my comments again and also the links that Nathan provided for additional reasons why I believe that things are getting better. '

Please read mine in regards to why they ARNT. Also read this for the opinions of some prominent retired generals and strategists. IMPORTANT NOTE: Not everything said here reflects my own personal opinons.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5016994-103550,00.html

'Of course there is. There always were certain elements that did not want the US effort to succeed.'

The point is - as a direct result of Iraq - more people have resorted to terrorism, and international terrorism is now a bigger threat. When people say 'we are fighting the war on terror' I wonder how this is the case, given what has happened to global terrorism.

'It would be naive to believe that there would not be some level of resistance.'

Of course it would. But the level of 'resistance' is huge, much bigger than anticipated. As i just said, dont you find it strange that the war on terror is being fought, and as a by product acts of terrorism are increasing?

'It has been postulated that the closer to success we become the more desperate those opposed to democracy will become. '

Im all for Democracy in Iraq, and hope it happens and grows. Some call me a pessimist, i prefer realist. I dont see HOW the situation in Iraq is coming closer to success. I just dont.