You know what your a person that puts words in others mouth. And a bit for doing what you claim others are seeking. Simple for me your a ___ fill in the blank, you know what I'm thinking.
I read your profile and wonder where is the missing parts.

The big picture here is not just American involvement,it's radical Islam and rouge dictators who support the tactics of terrorism.So you really think that the "only" reason we invaded Iraq was to control the flow of oil? Then would it not have been easier for Bush to embrace Saddam and halt all inspections in favor of cheap oil like we already do with the Saudis.

You can take your chances and isolate yourself from the enemy of freedom or engage the enemy.If we took the isolationist route North Korea would have had nukes by now and most likely they would have used them or threatened to use them to gain influence in the region.
Sure,we could take our chances and withdraw from the ME if we are willing to turn a blind eye to nuclear proliferation in the region.Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt would put those petrol dollars to work and Europe would then turn to the isolationists for help. What then,do we decide to involve ourselves only after the fact and find our isolationist mentality involved in a global nuclear exchange?

The cancer of terrorism must be delt with in the early stages if we expect to save democracy and our way of life. Yes,there are risks with pre-emptive warfare but there are also risks with letting others shape our destiny.Unfortunately there is more at stake here than oil,that's only a small component of the WoT. We no longer have the security of oceans to protect our way of life and a nuclear or biological attack can occur without the luxury of several months advance warning. I may not agree with the way this war was sold to us and I have little doubt that less than honest tactics were deployed to sell the war. However..I have no doubt as to the concern that many have when it comes to radical dictators in a nuclear age.

It's the same old story,while some do too little to address the concerns of radical Islam,others may take a far more agressive approach in defending and ensuring the survival of freedom and democracy.I believe that some day down the road there will be a nuclear or biological exchange,in fact..I believe it is inevitable. Perhaps we are just buying a little time for our way of life.The thought of 6th century theocracy's in possession of WMD's is not comforting.Isolationism is not without appeal nor is it without risk.Some of us see that risk while others do not,still others prefer to take their chances and view terrorism as a minor threat.I don't agree with the latter viewpoint. We called Saddam's bluff,he wanted us to think he had WMD's,he lost his head in the process but I have little doubt that he would in time have aquired them while some of us were content to wait and see what developed. Fine but you have to be willing to take some amount of risk with the future.Containment "may" have worked but we shall never know because some of us were unwilling to take that risk.Oh I forgot,you aint buying that BS,you still think it was all about the oil and that Saddam's regime was but a simple stone in our shoe.

Well I guess the onus is on we who support engaging the terrorists to prove what we shall never know for sure and considering what was at stake,the future of the free world, we shall accept the blame because our way of life is worth it.I once thought removing Saddam from power would not require an invasion,I no longer believe that pipe dream yet you cling to your dementia.
Saddam really had you fooled..shame on him and yes...shame on YOU because he fooled some of you twice.He violated his own agreements and yet,you continued to give him a free pass. So you want us to believe that you knew all along he had no WMD's ... BULLSHIT...you lie just like your buddy Saddam.Only "after" no WMD's were found did you beat your chest with false pride... Had WMD's been found,you would have said.."I knew that bastard had em".. and you would have backed the war no? See..I can see through your BS as well..

As to the cost of this war,it's very difficult to place a price on our freedom and way of life.I do know this..we can pay now or pay with our lives at a later date.Some say we should talk to the dictators and terrorists,I agree and we have talked to them and while we were talking they were perusing their own agenda. I cant help reciting a great man with vision who could truly see through all the BS.

"All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing"..Edmund Burke

-0-

I can never get why what I am saying is construed to be isolationist. I have said repeatedly that I have always supported the Afghan invasion. And I would have supported forcing Pakistan's hand while we had worldwide support. We lost a great opportunity to solve a festering problem. We divided our own military to take on a situation that could have been better handled later. BTW the threat of war was forcing the U.N. to make offers of tougher sanctions if you recall. So we could have done a lot with diplomacy to hold Iraq in check. But we have learned that the case was being managed by the white house. I would have been more then willing to take out Saddam also. But timing is everything.

So I'm not Saddams buddy

And I am not isolationist

"All that is needed for confusion to prevail is for good men to keep putting words in mens mouths they didn't say" Me

Check my post,was it addresed to you? No,it was adressed to anyone who did not see Saddam's regime as a threat and maintains even today that he posed no threat.

Well..I'm glad to hear that..I'm definitely not one either..

"all that is needed for obfuscation to prevail is to charge good men with putting words in mens mouth that they didn't." Me.

There are indeed people who believe in isolationism but I did not charge anyone in particular with that belief.Don't take things sooooooo personal.
The very same people who now oppose the war in Iraq would now be all for it if the WMD's had been found and they would beat their chests with pride and brag about being right all along.Since you're not one of those people,don't worry about it...

But they did buy it and so did a majority in congress! Are you saying that you knew from the onset that Saddam had no WMD's? If so,why didn't you contact your rep with evidence to prove it? You know you bought that lemon car and so did I and I'm willing to admit it. Yup,it was based on shoddy intel and speculation but unlike YOU..most of us were not aware of it.

Nope but removing Saddam may prove to be the BEST option. Face it,he continually violated his word and was calling our bluff.Was containment working? not very well and he had denied some of the inspections and you did not find that troubling? After all..supposedly he had nothing to hide!

Oh come on dam it,you can do better than that. You compare Saddam to a parolee violating his agreement? Unbelievable!!!!!!!!! That's the attitude that some of us find troubling. We tried several "measured" responses and Saddam refused to mend his ways and got what he deserved.

And you make Saddam's repeated violations sound trivial.Do you believe that 100% of the information was "manufactured"? Even the CIA at first believed the information but you knew better all along and you expect people to believe THAT? Yes the BA oversold the war and that's deplorable but there is no denying that Saddam was not living up to his agreements and what are agreements worth if they are not enforced? Don't you see,Saddam could handle measured responses and he was not counting on another invasion..SURPRISE..SURPRISE ...finally someone had the balls to call his bluff albeit it was based on a delusion and wrapped up in a deception.


You're right..some Americans have not learned their lesson but fear not, I'm sure we are due for a few more lessons at the hands of the terrorists,this aint over by a long shot!..

Now here we can agree,I would never have supported an "invasion" as a first option with what I now know to be true.That does not mean that Saddam would get a free pass! I would recommend ever increasing pressure for him to comply.I also agree that Saddam's actions were not trivial..in fact that's the point I'm trying to make! The so called measured responses were "trivial",he needed to be brought to his knees.We invaded his empire once remember and it was Saddam who kept thumbing his nose at us and refusing to comply on several occasions.Would have Saddam eventually complied 100% ? I doubt it and apparently the powers that be thought an invasion was the only way to get him to "fully" comply! I guess Saddam just ran out of chances and the BA and "congress" ran out of patience.

Right you are..in fact,some would not declare war under any circumstances.
It's such a tragedy that we did not have that insight when we were lobbying the UN to enforce their own resolutions.. that at the time, were based on facts!..

Yes but unlike you and your vast skills of perception,many of us originally believed that Saddam was in possession of WMD's. Only a very few people..like yourself,knew better from day one! The rest of us,at least the honest one's..are forced to admit that we were wrong about the WMD's. America breaks it's treaties and should be held accountable just like everyone else.If we are late for the trial,let them start without us.You see,we have the power to enforce treaties,that may not be a pretty picture but it's the truth! Too bad Saddam [failed to understand that piece of trivia,he would have ended his bluffing and he would be alive today if his own people did not kill him first.

You don't say..perhaps that's it after all.America the bully,is that what you are saying? Might may not make right but the consequences of stepping on Superman's cape may have consequences and our foes would be wise to never but us to a foolish test.I say the best defense is a good offense and it shows..

Yup,Saddam let inspectors do their inspections at a time and place that he selected.Why who could ask for more? I could..I would not ask but demand unfettered access 24 hours a day. We let the slug have his country back and he continued to enjoy playing the game. We called his bluff,shame on us..

No need to apologize but he did invade as you yourself put it..a sovereign nation. He was indeed a threat to the region and therefore a threat to the U.S. His compliance was sporadic,he was having too much fun but now the game is over.He is gone but not forgotten,at least "some" of us have not forgotten!

I salute you and the very "few" who "knew" from the onset that Saddam had no WMD's Had I known it and I admit that I did not know for sure he did not have them,I would never have supported the invasion. That said..when all is said and done,I guess we will have to accept Saddam's head as a consolation prize. If you took the time to read my posts on the war you would see that I fully supported our operation in Afghanistan and that I was "less" supportive of the invasion in Iraq. I simply don't believe in nation building or the gift of democracy to a people that neither asked for it or can little appreciate it's many benefits for decades to come. The corruption in Iraq is appalling and yes..we are squandering blood and treasure in one of the riskiest investments of all time.However..I cannot hide my delight at the passing of Saddam and his regime.

Yes,I would have voted for the war before I voted against it just like most of the honest people in this forum...Bad intel in - bad decisions out. Ever notice how most Americans now have 20-20 vision?

So we are THERE and the sooner the Iraqi forces can defend their own nation the better.Undoubtedly we were deceived,at least to some extent but we cannot leave hastily and make matters even worse than they already are.

-0-

Fair enough buddy. But to the WMD's. You are right. I personally have no way of knowing U.S. intel. But lets not forget that it wasn't universally accepted that he had them. There was lots of descent. I like many others started feeling that the admin. was hot to make the case for war. So maybe it wasn't just my super power but the fact that they seemed focused on one outcome. War with Iraq. And it looked to me like any cadse was enough for them.
I realized we were diverting from finishing an important mission. In order to follow a theory.A bad one at that.