Elias,

I like your last statement. Sometimes I am amazed that those who seek to destroy us don't realize that our press and about 50% of our country are doing the job for them.

Perhaps they are not satisfied with the pace?

I am glad to see that you have chosen a path that will result in the education of those most vulnerable to the treason of the leftists and ignorance of the followers.

Roger Coventry

When you say "go back to their banana smoothie pat each other on the back for having taken the moral high road� are you saying that because someone hasn't serve in the military that they do not have the right to have an opinion on the subject? Why do you need to be so condescending? I have a lot of respect for people in the military and their service but it is very dangerous to marginalize dissent.

And just so you know, people have fought for this county and have come out of it with the idea that this is the WRONG war. Here is a link for Veterans Against the Iraq War.

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php

You said: "They all seem so self rightous and and completely ignorant." As you are sounding self rightous. Would you be happier if there was only one truth that being your perseption of it and and dissenting opinions were not allowed? If not then you need to respect others opinions and not be so self rightious and condesending. So please stop taking as though you have a monopoly on the truth.

Elias, you are right about many topics. For some reason, many of our citizens have a latent self-loathing for the U.S. It is very easy to criticize us on some phantom moral high-ground then, as you say, go back to their banana smoothie thinking they've done something worthwhile. Many in the press are magnifications of this attitude. No one is saying that the U.S. is perfect. However, a little support against people sworn to kill non-Muslims would be nice every so often.

Keep up the blog...

Michael Engelhard said:

However, a little support against people sworn to kill non-Muslims would be nice every so often.

I support anything the administration would do to get Osama Bin Laden, however, Iraq had nothing to do 9/11 and George Bush said so, as did the 9/11 commission and the Senate Intelligence committee and the National Intelligence Estimate recently said that the war in Iraq is making terrorism worse.

So far on this thread I hear a lot of opinions but not one fact and I ask the question: Do I have the right to have a opinion different to yours without being accused of hating this country, taking a "phantom moral high-ground" or drinking banana smoothies? I hate banana smoothies.

It's because I love this country that when I see something that I think is wrong I speak out and I think we should all be allowed to speak out without fear of being ridiculed, accused of not being a patriot or drinking banana smoothies.

Oh and George Bush still hasn't caught OBL yet.

Mr. W, no one accused you of not being a patriot... your words, not anyone's on this thread.

Fact: Saddam has used WMD in the past. Fact: Saddam had invaded two countries previously (Iran and Kuwait). Fact: Saddam tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands in his 30-year reign as dictator of Iraq.

I think what is refered to in the "banana smoothie" methaphor is that somehow people in our country have made the moral equivalent of Abu Grahib and putting women's underwear on a prisoner's head (making us the same as Pol Pot if you listen to Sen. Durbin of Illinois) to the brutal sawing off of Nick Berg's head by Zarqawi. We take prisoners... they mutilate and kill ours. However, many in the U.S. think we're the more heinous of the combating parties (I'm not implying you, just many in the press and others around town).

BTW, when you make a statement like "Oh and George Bush hasn't caught OBL yet", that's not meant as sarcasm or ridicule, is it?

Michael,

Fact: We did not find WMD�s in Iraq and our own CIA report and George W Bush said that himself. The weapons inspections and the sanctions were working. That is what the CIA Duelfer Report said. Look it up.

Fact: We (USA) supported Saddam when he attacked Iran. We also turn a blind eye when he attacked Kuwait. It wasn't until he turned his sights to Saudi Arabia that we entered the war. You say that Saddam invaded two countries as though that should make us afraid when in reality Saddam fought a 8+ year war with Iran and it turned out to be a draw and how quickly did we kick his ass during Desert Storm? Why were we afraid of that? Why didn't we go onto Bagdad during Desert Storm? Because George H. W. Bush knew that going into Bagdad would be a quagmire that we would be involved in for decades to come. He wrote an article about it.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/04/14/EDG8D643TD1.DTL

As far as torture is concerned, yes Saddam was a bastard but there are plenty of bastards in this world that are oppressing their own population and if you make the argument that we have to stop people like Saddam Hussein based on some sort of moral authority then you might as well start a draft in this country because we need to stop the genocide in Darfur, as well as brutal dictators in Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and many other countries that have bastards for leaders. Don't fool yourself, the reason we stopped the Iraqi Bastard and not the Sudan Bastards is because Iraqi has the second largest oil reserves in the world.

As far as being more heinous, I don't think because they are animals that that makes it OK for us to be animals. If we are invading a country to liberate and save that country from the torture of it's leaders and we torture them as in Abu Grahib and the accusations of Gitmo and the rumor of renditions to other countries then that is hypocritical. If you make the argument that we are saving these people from oppression then you have taken the moral high ground, any behavior that is contrary to that moral high ground contradicts your argument for invading the country in the first place.

You said: Mr. W, no one accused you of not being a patriot... your words, not anyone's on this thread. No but in saying: �many of our citizens have a latent self-loathing for the U.S� you are insinuating that I loath the U.S. If you are going to have a intelligent discussion about a serious subject, maybe you should have a little respect for other people�s opinion by not being condescending.

George Bush has been all over the map on OBL saying �wanted dead or alive� one moment and �I don�t know where he (OBL) is�you know I really don�t spend much time on it� the next. The comment about George Bush not catching OBL simply means that how can you say �a little support against people sworn to kill non-Muslims would be nice every so often� when the President of the United States thinks that catching OBL and the war on terror is only 1/7 as important as invading a country that had nothing to do, by his own admission , with 9/11. On the other hand I have plenty of ridicule to go around for the Bush Administration.
I think the banana smoothie comment refers Elias� opinion that anyone who disagrees with him obviously isn�t really thinking about the situation enough and somehow cannot have an accurate opinion because �freedom is something none of them have ever been willing to die for, let alone the people of Iraq who are putting all on the line every day just for a taste of what we are born into.� I could just as easily say that Elias being 23 despite with military service, isn�t mature enough to make a sound judgement of such complicated world affairs which would be as equally ignorant a statement as the one that he has made.

Mr. W.,

The Duelfer Report also states that Iraq had a large program in the field of missle technology and that Saddam intended to reviatlize a WMD program once international sanctions were lifted. Look it up yourself.

Saddam could have prevented the invasion (and quite frankly could have made Bush look terrible in the process if he had only truely opened up to the U.N.) I am terribly disappointed that we didn't find WMD in Iraq as it would have made this a much clearer discussion. But that does not preclude the real regional and potentially global threat Saddam presented.

Again you make the moral equivalence argument between Zarqawi and the U.S. We find out about U.S. soldiers who commit crimes and we punish them... rightly so. The other side commits heinous acts and there are celebrations. I am glad we punish our crime-doers, but that does not make them the equivalent of butchers. Our soldiers are not "animals". "Self-loathing"... you tell me?

If us owning oil was key, why didn't we stay in Kuwait? Why didn't we stay in Iraq in '91? There are other nations without armies or links with radial Islam that have oil reserves... why don't we just make up an excuse and invade them? It would have been a lot easier than invading Iraq if this was exclusively about oil.

I don't think we should apologize for siding with Saudi Arabia in '91.. oil is obviously very important to all Western economies... does that make it bad? If oil is bad, then work to elect people who will reduce our dependency upon it.

Elias, if you need help in your credential progam including selecting one let me know I'd be glad to help.

BTW-I doubt the conservative press is really shining a light on the distinctions between Sunni and Shi'a either.

I bet most Fauz news viewers think Saddam was a religious extremist rather than a Stalin fan.

Elias "23" (I presume you meant years)?

Hardly. I served with him at Ft. Bragg in 1982.

Paul W...get real. Quotes quotes quotes from reports. Bottom line, you wasn't here. I can tell you that WMD did exist. I have uncles who died up north. Your report and quotes are nothing but someones incomplete research. Want to know the truth, come here. Other wise, get a grip.

Mr. Michael,

If you were a young man or woman joining the military, you would expect that as part of you job you might have to risk your life for your country if the situation arises. But shouldn’t you also expect that your country only send you into battle as a last resort? I think that’s reasonable don’t you? Well I’m sorry but this was not a last resort, not even close. Now you are trying to make the case that it was OK to invade Iraq because Saddam was “thinking” about having WMDs.

So Saddam wanted WMDs. Boy there’s a big surprise. To use a phrase that my 8 year old might say…Duh! But isn’t it better to continue to monitor him and continue the weapons inspections than to start a war that has claimed 2700 American soldiers lives, another 20,000 wounded and disabled and 100,000 Iraqi deaths. Not to mention the 2 billion dollars a week to fight this war. I doubt that it was costing us that much to keep up the inspections. The weapons inspectors thought we should continue inspecting. Hans Blix at the time thought that Saddam had destroyed his WMD as did his sucessor U.N. chief weapons inspector Demetrius Perricos. And Scott Ritter our own US weapons inspector said in 2002:

“There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated… We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat… It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited… We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war.
We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services.
If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we’d have proof, pure and simple.
As of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance.”

And on 29 July 2001, Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer. Guest host John King asks her about the sanctions against Iraq. She replies:

"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

And during a press conference on February 24, 2001 during Colin Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt said;

"We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."

When I said we shouldn’t be animals, I am not pointing a finger at our troops. I actually do not blame them for the crimes that may or may not have been committed during this war. I rather would point the finger at the policy makers that have placed them in this unwinnible situation without the necessary equipment and numbers.

As far as “owning oil” there is a lot of problems with your argument, first an foremost George W Bush wasn’t the president in 1991. I am not blaming this war on all republicans both past and present, I am blaming it on the current administration. It’s not about owning the oil but it could be that George Bush and his buddies (probably more his buddies than him. I really don’t think he’s that smart) realized that when the sanctions on Iraq were lifted that all of a sudden there would be a lot more oil on the market, thus driving the price down. Iraq also had oil deals with France and Russia so it wouldn’t have been American Oil companies making profits from that new glut.

I don’t think we should apologize for siding with Saudi Arabia in 91 either however saying that we want to give freedom to Iraq but ignoring the freedoms of the Saudi people because we have an oil deal with them is hypocritical.

Aus the Terp,

First I would like to say that I am sorry for the death of your uncle and that I greatly appreciate your service to our country.

Your post seems a little angry towards my words and I would like to ask, am I not entitled to voice an opinion?

I look at this forum as an exchange of ideas and maybe we all can learn a little from each other.