We are safer! - or the idiocy of howard dean

[Cycleon]

Charles Krauthammer

"One of the attacks they don't bring up very often anymore is the Saddam Hussein thing, that it's not safer since Saddam Hussein's been captured -- because we now have 23 troops killed and we're having fighter planes escorting passenger jets through American airspace. I noticed that line of attack disappeared fairly quickly.''
-- Howard Dean, Newsweek, Jan. 12


WASHINGTON -- Howard Dean may end up as a footnote in history, but he has already earned a place in the dictionary as the illustration accompanying the word smug. He claims that not only was he right that we are not safer with Saddam captured; not only has he already been vindicated by history, all 21 days of it; but he has been so obviously vindicated that his opponents, bowing to his superior wisdom, have stopped their attacks on this point.


They have not. He has been peppered with questions about this statement, most recently during the Jan. 4 Iowa debate. How could he not? The idea that we are not safer (a) because we are still losing troops and (b) because al Qaeda has not been extinguished, amounts to an open-court confession of cluelessness on foreign policy.

The first is the equivalent of saying that we were not safer after D-Day because we were still losing troops in Europe. In war, a strategic turning point makes you safer because it hastens victory, hastens the ultimate elimination of the hostile power, hastens the return home of the troops. It does not mean there is an immediate cessation, or even a diminution, of casualties (see: Battle of the Bulge).

The other part of the statement -- we cannot be safer because we are still threatened by terrorism -- is even more telling. It rests on the wider notion, shared not just by Dean but by many Democrats, that so long as al Qaeda is active, we are never any safer. This rests on the remarkable assumption that we have a single enemy in the world, al Qaeda, and that it and it alone defines ``safety.''

It is hard to believe that serious people can have so absurdly narrow a vision of American national security. The fact is that we have other enemies in the world.

Saddam was one of them, and he is gone. Libya was another, and it has just retired from the field, suing for peace and giving up its weapons of mass destruction. (Gaddafi went so far as to go on television to urge Syria, Iran and North Korea to do the same.) Iran has also gone softer, agreeing to spot inspections, something it never did before it faced 130,000 American troops about 100 miles from its border.

These gains are all a direct result of the Iraq War. A spokesman for Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told the London Daily Telegraph in September that Gaddafi had telephoned Berlusconi and told him: ``I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid.''

The idea that we are not safer because al Qaeda is not yet stopped is absurd. Of course we have terror alerts. We will continue to have them until al Qaeda is extinguished, and you do not eliminate in two years a menace that was granted eight years of unmolested growth and metastasis when Dean's party was in power.

But look at the region whence al Qaeda came. Not only has the Taliban been overthrown, Afghanistan just this week adopted a new constitution agreed to by a loya jirga (grand council) representing every part of this fractured tribal society. It is an astonishing development in a country with so little experience in representative government and ravaged by more than a quarter-century of civil war. And it came about as a result of American force of arms followed by American diplomacy.

Look at Pakistan. On 9/11 it was supporting the Taliban, ignoring al Qaeda and assisting other Islamic extremists. Force majeure by the Bush administration turned Pakistan. The Musharraf government is now a crucial ally in the war on terror.

And now just this week, another astonishing development: a summit between India and Pakistan leading to negotiations that, the joint communique said, ``will'' solve all outstanding issues, including the half-century-old fight over Kashmir. Both Pakistani and Indian observers agree that intense behind-the-scenes mediation by the Bush administration was instrumental in bringing about the rapprochement.

From Libya to India, ice is breaking and the region is changing. In this part of the world, there is no guarantee of success. But if this is not progress -- remarkable, unexpected and hugely significant -- then nothing is.


So all you lefties tell me again why the war in Iraq was not worth anything and a strategic mistake?

[Dude-Man]

No offense cycleon, but most of the points made in that paragraph have nothing to do with Saddam. They may have to do with terrorism, but not with him or his capture. I don't think that we're any safer as a result of this war. I think the Iraqi people are safer, and that's a very good thing. I think the middle east is safer, also a very very good thing. I think the war was worth accomplishing these two goals.

But are Americans safer as a direct consequence of saddam's capture? No. Find credible intelligence about iraqi terrorism on american soil in the few years before this war, and i'll reconsider my conclusion.

[Cycleon]

chris - the issue really never has been about saddam or Iraq in total - although they are important to be sure in their own right - but truthfully saddam would have been easy to keep a thumb on as long as we alowed him to stay in power - thats all he really cared about - what this whole deal is about however is puting a gigantic US footprint in the middle east and delivering the message to all other states in the area that the US is no longer open season and if all you children dont start getting respectful of your elders and play nice with each other, daddy uncle sam is going to whoop their hide too - and believe me, they are getting the message, from libya to syria to saudis to pakistan - they hear it loud and clear - and the results of that DOES make the US a lot safer - catching saddam was simply an object lesson for the other leaders who think they are invulnerable - and most of them would readily admit they are far less capable of resisting the US juggernaut if it puts them in its sight - so they will likely behave for awhile - until we go to sleep again and elect someone like Hillary or dean

[Dude-Man]

chris - the issue really never has been about saddam or Iraq in total - although they are important to be sure in their own right - but truthfully saddam would have been easy to keep a thumb on as long as we alowed him to stay in power - thats all he really cared about - what this whole deal is about however is puting a gigantic US footprint in the middle east and delivering the message to all other states in the area that the US is no longer open season and if all you children dont start getting respectful of your elders and play nice with each other, daddy uncle sam is going to whoop their hide too - and believe me, they are getting the message, from libya to syria to saudis to pakistan - they hear it loud and clear - and the results of that DOES make the US a lot safer - catching saddam was simply an object lesson for the other leaders who think they are invulnerable - and most of them would readily admit they are far less capable of resisting the US juggernaut if it puts them in its sight - so they will likely behave for awhile - until we go to sleep again and elect someone like Hillary or dean

That's basically what i said.. The middle east will be safer, and as a result we may be safer, but capturing saddam himself was merely a formality. Deans statement holds fairly true if you examine the quote. His quote was not about the war, but about saddam. I'm a firm believer in taking the things that politicians say literally and not leaving it open to interpretation.

The only problem i see with the whole thing is that the iraqi people have to rebuild, and the US contractors, formerly dick cheeny's company, have already shown themselves to be corrupt by overcharging for oil and other goods. Even though we liberated them from saddam, their daily quality of life has not increased. In the end I guess i just feel like human rights are more important than political interests.

As a footnote, if it comes to dean vs. bush, i will vote bush. Dean vs. clark however.. clark all the way.

[Mr. Death]

their daily quality of life has not increased.

What do you mean. They no longer have to live in fear of being murdered for speaking against Saddam, children (including females) are able to go back into classrooms, the workers are being paid 20 times what they made under Saddam, and emenities that we take for granted (such as television, movies, cell phones, etc.) are now making their way into the country.

[darmadoc]

If I'm not mistaken, the risk of an Iraqi being killed by a terrorist has gone up since our invasion, especially if they are viewed as cooperating with the US or the Iraqi police force (the members of which are occasionally shot to death by soldiers). While the big cities have cell phones and satellite TV (if that is your measure of quality of life) the majority of the country still has power outages, water problems and lack of fuel. By the way....where are those nast old WMD's that were our reason for invasion in the first place.

While, in general, I don't like to vote for governers for pres, due to a lack of foreign policy experience, I'll vote for anybody (except Al Sharpton) who the democrats put up this time. I think GWB and his right wing, born again, imperialists are the scariest bunch we've ever had in power. It would be even scarier if Bush himself were the brains behind the organization. Fortunately, I think they keep him happy by giving him an unattached red "NUKE" button to push whenever he feels like his manhood is threatened.

Flame away, I can take it!

[bermich]

The capture of Saddam Hussein shows the world that: America will complete its objective in finding ONE MAN in a huge country supported by many. We will find you and we will destroy the opposition that you lead. It is a message. If we did NOT CAPTURE hussein, the world would have seen it as a message that you can attack the US and then just hide again and wait us out. Well apparently not. You can run but you cant hide. That is a very serious messsage.

As far as rebuilding IRAQ. Yes we destroyed some of it. Yes we will rebuild it. WHY THE FUKC ARE YOU COMPLAINING about that? What were the IRAQis able to do with their country before we were there? Not like they took strolls to the park with their dogs.

I swear, the lefties NEVER see anything good into anything the republicans do.

We could **** OUT WORLD PEACE and the democrats would complain that we didnt wipe our ass afterwards.

[bermich]

If

Flame away, I can take it!

It was a good post. Had some facts to it unlike Chris' post only fueled by the same response "WAR IS WRONG" and peace can be talked out.
I didnt think they had cell phones in IRAQ. At least not on a personal consumer basis.
Sure Bush is getting REAL power hungry lately. Keeping him in office for another four years will definatley give him room to pull of a lot of crap that will ruin OUR personal freedom but, at this time of life where the middle east is sorta kinda talking and such, I say dont rattle things. Keep things rolling as they are. A democrat would pull all the troops out and leave the middle east desolate and let them start WARING again.
Another four years of BUSH and the middle east might accomplish something.
I cant put my sentences into anything elaborate. Im going out to get drunk and thrown out of a bar. BYE.

[darmadoc]

Bermich, with all due respect Saddam did not attack the US. Even Bush now admits Saddam had NO connections to Al Quaieda, and was in NO WAY responsible for 9-11. Admittedly, it took the press catching GWB and Rumsfeld in their collosal lie to get them to admit it. Nevertheless, as Colin Powell and the CIA originally said, and BUSh is trying his hardest not to admit, Saddam did not, could not, and would not (he valued his own life) attack the US. This was about avenging slights to the family name, distracting people from a faltering economy, and generating revenu for huge campaign donors.

We have dead Iraqis, dead Americans (only poor ones- wonder if we would have had this war if Bush and his friends had kids in the military) and frankly I see little to show for it. That is what the f**k I am complaining about!

Just for the record, Bush one did plenty of good things, I have nothing against Republicans. I would have voted for McCain. It just so happened that the village idiot got elected.

[Cycleon]

reality check - all the Iraqis who have died so far in this war would probably equal the number that Saddam would have had executed in this last year alone - so PLEASE do not make your argument look utterly stupid by saying the Iraqis are not better off - they will need adjustment time and who knows whether they will be able to pull it off - but at least they will have a chance - and some money to do so.

Way I see it, Saddam was on borrowed time anyway - we should have removed himin 91 but didnt because we probably still needed him to distract Iran - since he wasnt doing a good job at that and was becoming a pain in the butt to us and ever more so to his own people - the US thought it would go ahead and do what it had decided to a ffew years ago, it was a good time to make a statement. Terrorists make a statement - then the US makes a statement - I guarantee you, they are listening.

Capturing Saddam does make us a bit safer in one way - while he was free and ever had the chance to come back in anyway whatsoever, many people were to afraid of even his shadow - the way he was captured in humiliation took a lot of pride and steam out of those who would ahve kept fighting for him - the foriengers will keep fighting but many of the locals have started deciding to get with the program since Saddam wont be there to help them any more

[Dude-Man]

It was a good post. Had some facts to it unlike Chris' post only fueled by the same response "WAR IS WRONG" and peace can be talked out.

Woah there cowboy. In no way did i say "war is wrong" i don't know who you're quoting there. I actually stated that i felt the war was good. I don't know whose post you misread, but it wasn't mine.

Mr. death. The amenities you state are of no consequence if the people do not have food homes clean water and electricity. We destroyed 40% of the iraqi infrastructure. We have repaired almost none of it.

75,00-150,000 iraqi civilians have died in this conflict. That's how many saddam would've executed this year? That would make him personally responsible for 1.5 to 3 million deaths over the course of his rule. Seems a bit exaggerated

[Dude-Man]

To reiterate, i am pro war and pro military. However, i think we're doing a ****ty job with this one, especially the clean up.

[Mr. Death]

Mr. death. The amenities you state are of no consequence if the people do not have food homes clean water and electricity.

That would make him personally responsible for 1.5 to 3 million deaths over the course of his rule. Seems a bit exaggerated

Sure, not everyone is living it up in Iraq, but that can be said for any country in the world (including the U.S.). I just disagree with you that the quality of life in Iraq has not improved. Also, Saddam was responsible for the deaths of 4 million people during his rule.

[Mr. Death]

To reiterate, i am pro war and pro military. However, i think we're doing a ****ty job with this one, especially the clean up.

I agree. We did a perfect job executing this war, but the cabinet has done a horrible job with the post-war planning.

[Dude-Man]

Sure, not everyone is living it up in Iraq, but that can be said for any country in the world (including the U.S.). I just disagree with you that the quality of life in Iraq has not improved. Also, Saddam was responsible for the deaths of 4 million people during his rule.

i'm gonna need a source on that.

http://www.news24.com/City_Press/Cit...462000,00.html 300,000 says bush.

[darmadoc]

Just so we don't forget, at the time Saddam gassed the Kurds the US was his ally. We LOVED him back then because he was fighting Iran. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, we prevented the UN from sanctioning him. See, it gets tricky when we set out to be the moral voice of the world.

I think we should not have gone into Iraq. However, once the decision was made: we should have gone in the right way, with the right amount of troops, the right strategy. Instead, we went in on the cheap, expected everybody to role over and play dead for us, and GWB to be the hero of the world. Now we are mired in this disaster, the Iraqi's are beginning to think they may have been better off before we got there, Bin Laden and the Taliban (remeber them) are back and as good as new.

Call me arrogant, but I don't see this argument as "utterly stupid".

[shootdeep]

dean is an idiot living in a fantasy world. in the long run we'll be better off for doing what we've done in iraq.

[groverman1]

I have served under democratic and republican presidents and the democratic ones ( Bill Clinton) fuucked up the military more than words can say. I am neither a republican or democrat but I can say in all certainty that Howard Dean is a joke IMO.

[darmadoc]

If you listen to what the Joint Chiefs have been saying, Rumsfeld (and therefore Bush)has been anything but the military's friend.

[groverman1]

The Joint Chiefs rarely agree with the current president and his advisors and staff. I would hate to be the pres in this day and age.

[saboudian]

Well one of the problems with the Iraq War is the US's credibility. What will happen the next time the US comes to the UN and declares another country as a threat?

Also as a result, France is undermining the US's stance throughout Europe. This would definitely have an influence on young nations, or new nations in or trying to join nato or the EU. Maybe this is foolish for France because they possibly could drive themselves into isolation, but they are obviously an influential part of Europe.

As far as life being better in Iraq because there's no saddam, well you've been watching too much cnn then, life is a hell of alot worse now. The number of civilian casualties will never be known, but its a big number. Sure Saddam was a threat but they still had water, electricity, food, and security. I sincerely doubt that the number of Iraqi's killed as a result of the war would be higher than the number Saddam could have killed, being that he was already on the verge of losing power, which might have been a better strategy for eliminating Saddam if that was the goal. And as bad as saddam is, all you have to do is look at Africa and you'll find plenty of leaders who are much worse.

[spywizard]

Before we got there it cost the equivilent of $700 us dollars to operate a car there.. (1 years wages)...

How would you like to pay that much in vehicle taxes... 1 years salary...

Safer now then before we attacked the country that was the biggest threat to us, and our interest..

Please only the nieve believe that the Iraqi people were better off before..

Read something other than the Democratic Post..

[jeffylyte]

similar to ChrisAdams I must say that We are no safer that Sadaam is captured. Its also amazing that GW said Sadaam didnt matter and now plays up his capture. Plain and simple, Iraq was defeated and as such has no more affect on us. capturing Sadaam was for ****s and giggles for us, but has made Iraqis marginally safer.

just to be clear, this has nothign to do with teh right and wrong of the war, just as to the importance of 1 man no longer in power.

also, groverman may have not liked the military under CLinton, but Clinton pretty much left the military to its own devices, Other than politicizing the base restructuring, the Congress (republican) f'ed it all up. The pentagon had desired to outsource non-critical work and restructure to save money to buy weapnonry. COngress did stuff like commision outdated weapons and build washing facilities that were to be outsourced.

In my years I have learned, Presidents of both parties do a decent job of giving the military what it needs and Congress of both parties tries to use the military to funnel money to thier district!

[spywizard]

Wow...

I was in the AirForce for 10 years under Jimmy carter, and Ronald Regan...

I did like the 23% pay increase in 1 year under Regan...

But what you said is correct...

Other than the fact that Clinton dismantaled the foreign intelligence community that we had.. or rather significantly hampered it's effectivness.



Bump to your statement though..

similar to ChrisAdams I must say that We are no safer that Sadaam is captured. Its also amazing that GW said Sadaam didnt matter and now plays up his capture. Plain and simple, Iraq was defeated and as such has no more affect on us. capturing Sadaam was for ****s and giggles for us, but has made Iraqis marginally safer.

just to be clear, this has nothign to do with teh right and wrong of the war, just as to the importance of 1 man no longer in power.

also, groverman may have not liked the military under CLinton, but Clinton pretty much left the military to its own devices, Other than politicizing the base restructuring, the Congress (republican) f'ed it all up. The pentagon had desired to outsource non-critical work and restructure to save money to buy weapnonry. COngress did stuff like commision outdated weapons and build washing facilities that were to be outsourced.

In my years I have learned, Presidents of both parties do a decent job of giving the military what it needs and Congress of both parties tries to use the military to funnel money to thier district!

[saboudian]

Before we got there it cost the equivilent of $700 us dollars to operate a car there.. (1 years wages)...

How would you like to pay that much in vehicle taxes... 1 years salary...

Safer now then before we attacked the country that was the biggest threat to us, and our interest..

Please only the nieve believe that the Iraqi people were better off before..

Read something other than the Democratic Post..

Yes you're absolutely right, thousands of Iraqi civilians died because of us, but at least they can afford a car now.

Safer now to live in Iraq? Do you need to be reminded of the constant looting(among many, many crimes) that go on now because of the lack of a police force and judicial system?

[Cycleon]

Yes you're absolutely right, thousands of Iraqi civilians died because of us, but at least they can afford a car now.

Safer now to live in Iraq? Do you need to be reminded of the constant looting(among many, many crimes) that go on now because of the lack of a police force and judicial system?

you really do need to read something besides the NY times - if I wanted to fucus on a few things here and there I can make it look however I want - care to know how many murders were in NY state last month? robberies, looting, etc? thats less people than are in Iraq

[darmadoc]

Yeah, but nobody invaded New York and promised things would be better for them. I'm not sure I see where you are going with that. Fortunately, we now have the new "trip to Mars" to dustract us until the elections.

By the way, what would you suggest the New York Times be replaced with.

[bermich]

Well one of the problems with the Iraq War is the US's credibility. What will happen the next time the US comes to the UN and declares another country as a threat?

.

Who gives a FUKC about the UN. It is useless to us anyway especially with France and Russia just trying to make a profit rather than trying to help the world. Right now, if the US deems another country as a threat, we will just go in and invade. We almost did that to syria cause they were fukcing iwth us.

Who said the rebuilding efforts havent taken effect? How would you know?
Because CNN hasnt told you so? Have you been there or are you just going off the opinion that since you heard nothing of rebuilding that there is no rebuilding.
What do you expect? A fukcing SHOPPING MALL and pizza hut to be up and running and photographed in the NY times?
Seriously. What is supposed to be accomplished in 4 months? I new **** built, a skyscraper erected? Get a clue as to real life workings.

Fact plain and simple. Any country under military control is gonna be a mess for a long time and the occupants wont be happy.
Same as you. If you bought a house with empty fields all around you, you would be happy. Then tractors come and start grading to put up a mall.
Of course you are gonna protest due to the noise and dirt.
But god forbid, afterwards, its a nice mall with ALL the essentials you could want, your house value goes up and the roads are NOW paved with access right to the freeway for you, YOU WOULD THEN BE HAPPY and forget about the past construction.

CONCENTRATE on the future. Quit bitching about the IRaqis well being. Until you go there and start doing interviews, dont think they are unhappy based on TWO IRAQIS you have seen on the news who say they DISLIKE the US.

You can do an interview and have the results draw out to any conclusion YOU WANT.

THE TALIBAN are in full effect??? WHO THE FUKC THINKS THAT?
Yeah. In full effect where? The US is in Afghan and Iraq and next door to all their other hang outs. FULL EFFECT MY ASS.

[bermich]

Yeah, but nobody invaded New York and promised things would be better for them. I'm not sure I see where you are going with that. Fortunately, we now have the new "trip to Mars" to dustract us until the elections.

By the way, what would you suggest the New York Times be replaced with.

Why the FUKC would somebody invade NEW YORK? Is New York being tortured and raped.

IRAQ is possibly the richest country of oil in the world yet they live in a THRID WORLD COUNTRY. Wouldnt that piss you off that your country is not reaching its full potential because the dictator is proclomating gold statues of himself instead of giving you a job?

[tryingtogetbig]

Yeah, but nobody invaded New York and promised things would be better for them. I'm not sure I see where you are going with that. Fortunately, we now have the new "trip to Mars" to dustract us until the elections.

By the way, what would you suggest the New York Times be replaced with.

Billary invaded New York...does that count? Seriously though, have all the left wing tree hugging f*cking liberals forgot about 911? That sure seemed like an invasion to me.

The New York Times isn't even good enough to use as toilet paper.

Peace,

ttgb

[USfighterFC]

Look guys I worked in lower Manhattan the day the towers came down and in all honesty I seemed to have blocked most of that day out of my memory because I remember so few things. If the date was Sept 10th 2001 and I was saying how much of a threat Osama was nobody would back me up. Just because these threats are not in the open doesn't mean they aren't there. For all you guys know Saddam could have been planning a terrorist attack 100 times worse than 9/11. Is this scenerio likely.........not really.....is it possible....YES. Do I think that we are safer now that Saddam is not in power anymore...yeah i do. I believe this not because Saddam was an imminent threat against us but instead a hostile nation and psychotic leader that would love nothing more than to see us die is now gone by our US military's hand as well as the fact that a broad message was sent across the world. If you lie to us and decieve us and make us feel threatened then we will take action. That action doesnt always include war. And please dont say well why dont we invade North Korea. Because NK has nukes thats why you dont. No country will ever invade a country with nukes unless they have some sort of death wish. This is why it is so important to deal with countries with the capability of getting WMD's before they actually acquire them. Peoploe can protect against chemical and bio weapons. You can't protect against nukes or radiological weapons (which are much easier to develop) .At one time Saddam Hussein had enough sarin nerve gas to wipe out the entire world 10 times over. i dont know about you but I feel a hell of a lot better sleeping at night knowing that bastard is gone and so is that capability.

[ENraged]

IMO the capture of saddam is is just a step in the battle! We have not won any war on terror and it mean very little in my eyes at all. Personal this entire iraq conflict was just plan stupid. Bush dupped most the us in to believe that saddam had all these possiable could be weapons on mass. What have we found? just take a step back and look at the big picture. We have made more enemys then before by not listening to nato and just doing our own thing and battling them anyways. .If good old boy bush wanted to go in for other reasons then he should have said so in the first place. I have nothing against kicking some ass becuase there could be a problem down the road but this was not about that from what i can see. Look s more like a you tried to kill my daddy so now i am running my army straight through you!! As for dean dont really care so long as uber tool bush doesnt get put back in office for another term.

[tryingtogetbig]

Look guys I worked in lower Manhattan the day the towers came down and in all honesty I seemed to have blocked most of that day out of my memory because I remember so few things. If the date was Sept 10th 2001 and I was saying how much of a threat Osama was nobody would back me up. Just because these threats are not in the open doesn't mean they aren't there. For all you guys know Saddam could have been planning a terrorist attack 100 times worse than 9/11. Is this scenerio likely.........not really.....is it possible....YES. Do I think that we are safer now that Saddam is not in power anymore...yeah i do. I believe this not because Saddam was an imminent threat against us but instead a hostile nation and psychotic leader that would love nothing more than to see us die is now gone by our US military's hand as well as the fact that a broad message was sent across the world. If you lie to us and decieve us and make us feel threatened then we will take action. That action doesnt always include war. And please dont say well why dont we invade North Korea. Because NK has nukes thats why you dont. No country will ever invade a country with nukes unless they have some sort of death wish. This is why it is so important to deal with countries with the capability of getting WMD's before they actually acquire them. Peoploe can protect against chemical and bio weapons. You can't protect against nukes or radiological weapons (which are much easier to develop) .At one time Saddam Hussein had enough sarin nerve gas to wipe out the entire world 10 times over. i dont know about you but I feel a hell of a lot better sleeping at night knowing that bastard is gone and so is that capability.

well said!

[Vanmuscle]

Why the FUKC would somebody invade NEW YORK? Is New York being tortured and raped.

IRAQ is possibly the richest country of oil in the world yet they live in a THRID WORLD COUNTRY. Wouldnt that piss you off that your country is not reaching its full potential because the dictator is proclomating gold statues of himself instead of giving you a job?

I don't know which would be worse, that or knowing that another oil-hungry country imposing their will now contols the oil taps. Is anyone here naive enough to believe the war in Iraq was about liberating Iraquis? Oil, oil, oil...

[USfighterFC]

"I don't know which would be worse, that or knowing that another oil-hungry country imposing their will now contols the oil taps. Is anyone here naive enough to believe the war in Iraq was about liberating Iraquis? Oil, oil, oil..."

Spoken like a true Canadian............this coming from America Junior.