A VIDEO THAT WILL FOOL MILLIONS OF PEOPLE!

[Iz Man]

Typical. Namecalling right in your first sentence will really validate you point.

So just pull out completely?
If that's a viable solution, then why doesn't the left (who controls the purse strings now) just cut off the funding. That would bring the troops home real quick.

Oh yeah, and give the pro-war crowd a bumper sticker and a rallying cry. Real smart.

So we shouldn't just pull out because it will give the opposition to your opinion something to rally around? Sounds like a pretty weak argument to me.

We shift our focus from fighting the insurgents directly to training the Iraqi armed forces to do it for us. Then we can keep the necessary number of troops in Iraq to train the Iraqis (which I believe has been a stated goal for at least a year now with no forward progress) and we can bring the rest home to be parents, siblings, and families again.

That is exactly what is going on right now. Unfortunately, the biggest mistake made in Iraq was assuming the Iraqi people would actually have the fortitude to stand up and fight for themselves. A huge oversight. Until the Iraqis are able to fight the insurgency directly on their own, we have to. While at the same time try to get some sort of fire lit under the Iraqi collective ass so they can fend for themselves.
It's called multi-tasking.

That way the anti-war crowd gets their draw-down, and the pro-war crowd get to keep watching guns and death while their hands bob up and down on their cocks.

It seems you just can't resist adolescence, can you?

[qeee1]

Why don't you want them to win games?

Other NBA teams did nothing to the Lakers to provoke them in the first place. These other teams were minding their own business. If the Lakers defeat other NBA teams, it will inflame their hatred against the Lakers even more.

Why do you support the players?

Because many of them had no other options for their lives. It was either make millions of dollars by participating in professional basketball, or get a college degree. Given those choices, they were forced to join a professional sports league. They didn't ask to oppress other teams...they're just following the orders of their coach.

How do you support the players?

I wear a purple & gold ribbon on my shirt until they all return safely to their families upon the completion of the regular season. Hopefully, they will not make the playoffs and cause further pain and suffering.

How does one support the troops and not the war?

You win. I think we agree anyway.

[vtmarik]

So we shouldn't just pull out because it will give the opposition to your opinion something to rally around? Sounds like a pretty weak argument to me.

Won't work, there's not enough congressional support to override the President's almost certain veto. How's that for an argument?

That is exactly what is going on right now. Unfortunately, the biggest mistake made in Iraq was assuming the Iraqi people would actually have the fortitude to stand up and fight for themselves. A huge oversight. Until the Iraqis are able to fight the insurgency directly on their own, we have to. While at the same time try to get some sort of fire lit under the Iraqi collective ass so they can fend for themselves.
It's called multi-tasking.

Multitasking leads to incomplete work on all fronts. Rather than putting our resources to several things and doing them all badly, let's put the resources into one thing at a time and get this shit done.

There comes a point when you have to let the bicycle go and see if the kid can ride it himself.

It seems you just can't resist adolescence, can you?

*shrugs* Gets the point across.

[Titanic]

We are at war. How we got there at this point does not matter.
So do you support the troops and hope for a swift victory?
Or do you hope for defeat?

A swift victory? 4 years of war going from bad to worse, and you still expect a swift victory? How dumb are you?

Unfortunately, the biggest mistake made in Iraq was assuming the Iraqi people would actually have the fortitude to stand up and fight for themselves. A huge oversight. Until the Iraqis are able to fight the insurgency directly on their own, we have to.

No, the biggest mistake, after actually deciding to invade, was to dismantle the Iraqi army and security forces. Any intellectual commentator or expert will tell you that. The breaking up of their army and security forces creating the huge power vacuum, which led to the rioting and vandalism and ultimatly to gangs and insurgency groups.

The British government, the governments of other nations, private think-tanks in the US, and loads of other people told the Bush administration not to break up the army and security forces because of what will happen. Did they listen? No! The thousands of deaths of western soldiers, and the tens of thousands of deaths of Iraqis is totally the American governments fault. How do you expect the Iraqis to cope if you take away all of the infrastructure and instituition which ran the country, and give them a minimal force to hold the peace?

[mandalorian2298]

I certainly don't abide by that thought concerning the war, but it's an answer to your question.
By not supporting the war, does that mean you support the coalition's defeat?
The fact is we are at war. Whether you agreed with the premise for it or not. Therefore you now have a choice:
You can support the troops and hope for a swift victory.
or
You can support the defeat of our troops.

Hopefully you would choose the first option. If you chose the second, then I would call you a traitor and a coward.

YAY! *throws a dart into a picture of Oscar Schindler* Take that, you cowardly traitor!

Ah, but you won't answer the question, will you?
We are at war. How we got there at this point does not matter.
So do you support the troops and hope for a swift victory?
Or do you hope for defeat?
Simple question, but it puts you in a quandary, doesn't it?
A victory in Iraq would mean a victory for Bush, and we just can't have that now, can we? The far-left in D.C. is in the same predicament, except they can actually do something about it.
The politicians (in D.C., anyway) who have been shouting that this war is unwinnable, our troops are harassing innocent civilians in the dark of night, or that they are murderers in the like of Stalin, Hitler, & Pol Pot, have had the ability to stop the war.
Just not fund it. Its how they "ended" Vietnam.
Without the money, you can't fight the war.
But even those far-lefties know this is not a viable option (see Cambodia & Vietnam post-American withdrawl). They're stuck, so what do they do?
Just keep bashing Bush. As long as the war is being "difficult" he'll look bad, and that's really what counts now; with the premise that a Democrat in the white house in '08 will win "Bush's war", be the savior of the free world, and prove once and for all that Bush was an inept president.
One problem: none of these Dem's running for President has a solution to Iraq, not one.

That, and the surge is actually starting to show some success. "Oh NO!! What will we do if the surge is successful???"

We are at war, so back to the question:
Do you wish for victory, or do you wish for defeat?

If by 'troops' you mean American invaders, then 'no' I do not support them and 'yes' I do hope that they will be defeted so horribly that the proud people of the Home of the Brave will realise that invading other countries, even when you have a superior army and are angry about something, is a bad idea. Of course, it would be nice if the people of USA realize this without bloodshed, but as Vietnam and Korea wars have tought us, they will not. It is far better to 'win' an unjust war through an overwhelming numbers and superior weapons, then develop a sense of right and wrong and a character necessary to admit that you are wrong. "We are at war. How we got there at this point does not matter." will remain a american way of thinking untill they expirience the full ramifications of such behavior.

I do hope that Iraqi victory will be swift. But if I had to choose between the 'swift victory' and 'victory of defenders against their invaders' I would chose the latter. You hope for the 'swift victory' because you don't want to face the consequences of your nations evil deeds (yes, invading a country and geting a bunch of civilians killed is evil and no, it's not Iraqis fault for resisting your invasion. They do have a moral right to resist invaders and you don't have the moral right to kill them for it. I guess morality is kind of unjust, ha? )

As for the second part of your post I do think that it is sad that the only way to stop the war is to cut your army's funds. That was exactly my point about Schindler. He also tried to undermine the efforts of the brave German lads who were fighting for their country by producing faulty munition. But he was an even worse fiend than that. To imagine the traitor like Oscar Schindler you would have to combine a nasty Democrat trying to cut the army's funds and a cowardly guard guard in Guantanamo who keeps trying to prevent torture of the inmates.

I know what you are going to say: "That torture thing happened only a few times and that, combined with a few whimsical pictures that American soliders took and few stray 'smart' bombs which happened to kill civilians (who had no right to be there in the first place) are weak attempts to demonize the brave soliders and jailors of our country. Besides, it only happened a few times. Let's not blow things out of proportions." With this I have to agree. You know, deep down inside, I hope that no G.I.-s are killed by those crazy Iraqi suicide-bombers. I hope that each and every one of them gets 'accidently' hit with a smart bomb. That's no biggie, they should be fine. Also, I hope that the complete family of each jailor in Guantanamo expiriences only those things that their brave jailor did to the 'terrorists' that he guarded. Because, unlike the stupid inmates who may or my not be guilty, the family member of the brave jailor will know that his/her suffering will help the war effort.

Finally on the subject of those brave troops who happened to be cought in the middle of an unjust war. I hope that they either get killed or go home. Unless USA started using slave-armies each of those men and women is their by their own free will. As such, their suffering the consequences of their actions leaves me with a fuzzy feeling that the justice has been done. As for the uber-argument "They have to follow orders", let me clear it up for you. If you are weak, immoral coward then yes you do have to follow orders because the army will punish you if you don't (they have to follow orders too). If, however, you are moral, strong of character and brave, then you a) don't sign up for a job wich consists of following orders no matter what they consist of, or b) if you have already screwed up and are sent to invade a country then desert or refuse to follow orders, because nothing you do will be worse then the consequences of choosing c). If you do choose c) do what you are told, no matter if it's immoral; prepare for a life of feeling the need to spit into the mirror every time you have to wash your face or shave (and please don't come back from the war and act like people owe you a debt of graditude. If you have fought for a worthy cause and in a manner befitting a warrior, then you will know that you acomplished something great and won't need a comformation for other people. If you have buchered innocents or helped others to do so, you can lie to yourself all you want, but the truth of it will haunt you forever.)

[Iz Man]

So we shouldn't just pull out because it will give the opposition to your opinion something to rally around? Sounds like a pretty weak argument to me.

Won't work, there's not enough congressional support to override the President's almost certain veto. How's that for an argument?

That is exactly what is going on right now. Unfortunately, the biggest mistake made in Iraq was assuming the Iraqi people would actually have the fortitude to stand up and fight for themselves. A huge oversight. Until the Iraqis are able to fight the insurgency directly on their own, we have to. While at the same time try to get some sort of fire lit under the Iraqi collective ass so they can fend for themselves.
It's called multi-tasking.

Multitasking leads to incomplete work on all fronts. Rather than putting our resources to several things and doing them all badly, let's put the resources into one thing at a time and get this shit done.

There comes a point when you have to let the bicycle go and see if the kid can ride it himself.

So in WWII should we have not committed anything to Europe and solely concentrate in the Pacific? I can walk and chew gum at the same time, so can the military and politicians. The Iraqis are not ready (unfortunately) to handle the insurgency completely on their own right now. We must continue to fight the insurgency AND train the Iraqis. It is not an insurmountable task. "Letting the bike go" now will just lead the Iraqis into oncoming traffic.

It seems you just can't resist adolescence, can you?

*shrugs* Gets the point across.

There would seem to be a "more adult" way to make a point without coming across as a 13 year old. To each one's own, I guess.

[Iz Man]

If by 'troops' you mean American invaders, then 'no' I do not support them and 'yes' I do hope that they will be defeted so horribly that the proud people of the Home of the Brave will realise that invading other countries, even when you have a superior army and are angry about something, is a bad idea. Of course, it would be nice if the people of USA realize this without bloodshed, but as Vietnam and Korea wars have tought us, they will not. It is far better to 'win' an unjust war through an overwhelming numbers and superior weapons, then develop a sense of right and wrong and a character necessary to admit that you are wrong. "We are at war. How we got there at this point does not matter." will remain a american way of thinking untill they expirience the full ramifications of such behavior.

I do hope that Iraqi victory will be swift. But if I had to choose between the 'swift victory' and 'victory of defenders against their invaders' I would chose the latter. You hope for the 'swift victory' because you don't want to face the consequences of your nations evil deeds (yes, invading a country and geting a bunch of civilians killed is evil and no, it's not Iraqis fault for resisting your invasion. They do have a moral right to resist invaders and you don't have the moral right to kill them for it. I guess morality is kind of unjust, ha? )

As for the second part of your post I do think that it is sad that the only way to stop the war is to cut your army's funds. That was exactly my point about Schindler. He also tried to undermine the efforts of the brave German lads who were fighting for their country by producing faulty munition. But he was an even worse fiend than that. To imagine the traitor like Oscar Schindler you would have to combine a nasty Democrat trying to cut the army's funds and a cowardly guard guard in Guantanamo who keeps trying to prevent torture of the inmates.

I know what you are going to say: "That torture thing happened only a few times and that, combined with a few whimsical pictures that American soliders took and few stray 'smart' bombs which happened to kill civilians (who had no right to be there in the first place) are weak attempts to demonize the brave soliders and jailors of our country. Besides, it only happened a few times. Let's not blow things out of proportions." With this I have to agree. You know, deep down inside, I hope that no G.I.-s are killed by those crazy Iraqi suicide-bombers. I hope that each and every one of them gets 'accidently' hit with a smart bomb. That's no biggie, they should be fine. Also, I hope that the complete family of each jailor in Guantanamo expiriences only those things that their brave jailor did to the 'terrorists' that he guarded. Because, unlike the stupid inmates who may or my not be guilty, the family member of the brave jailor will know that his/her suffering will help the war effort.

Finally on the subject of those brave troops who happened to be cought in the middle of an unjust war. I hope that they either get killed or go home. Unless USA started using slave-armies each of those men and women is their by their own free will. As such, their suffering the consequences of their actions leaves me with a fuzzy feeling that the justice has been done. As for the uber-argument "They have to follow orders", let me clear it up for you. If you are weak, immoral coward then yes you do have to follow orders because the army will punish you if you don't (they have to follow orders too). If, however, you are moral, strong of character and brave, then you a) don't sign up for a job wich consists of following orders no matter what they consist of, or b) if you have already screwed up and are sent to invade a country then desert or refuse to follow orders, because nothing you do will be worse then the consequences of choosing c). If you do choose c) do what you are told, no matter if it's immoral; prepare for a life of feeling the need to spit into the mirror every time you have to wash your face or shave (and please don't come back from the war and act like people owe you a debt of graditude. If you have fought for a worthy cause and in a manner befitting a warrior, then you will know that you acomplished something great and won't need a comformation for other people. If you have buchered innocents or helped others to do so, you can lie to yourself all you want, but the truth of it will haunt you forever.)

You are a sorry, sad, lost cause.
I wish you well.
Oh, BTW, there has never been any torture at Gitmo. Its a friggin' resort hotel.

[Iz Man]

A swift victory? 4 years of war going from bad to worse, and you still expect a swift victory? How dumb are you?

Given your youth its easy to understand how you think 4 years is a long time.

No, the biggest mistake, after actually deciding to invade, was to dismantle the Iraqi army and security forces. Any intellectual commentator or expert will tell you that. The breaking up of their army and security forces creating the huge power vacuum, which led to the rioting and vandalism and ultimatly to gangs and insurgency groups.

The British government, the governments of other nations, private think-tanks in the US, and loads of other people told the Bush administration not to break up the army and security forces because of what will happen. Did they listen? No! The thousands of deaths of western soldiers, and the tens of thousands of deaths of Iraqis is totally the American governments fault. How do you expect the Iraqis to cope if you take away all of the infrastructure and instituition which ran the country, and give them a minimal force to hold the peace?

Funny. Taking away Saddam's "infrastructure" & "institution" that "ran" the country?
How exactly did he "run" the country?

[Titanic]

Given your youth its easy to understand how you think 4 years is a long time.

4 years for a war which involves the two strongest military powers in the world and a number of other countries against a country which could not even afford to feed its own people. Also, my statement about 4 years was because you said you expected a "swift victory". If you are ina complete mess after 4 years, how exactly do you expect to achieve a "swift victory"?

Funny. Taking away Saddam's "infrastructure" & "institution" that "ran" the country?
How exactly did he "run" the country?

[/quote]

I'm not saying he was perfect by any means, but the country was much safer under Saddam, which is a sign of how bad the country is now is it was a safer country underneath an evil idealogical dictator. Hundreds of thousands of people have fled from Iraq into the neighbouring countries because they fear for their lives. When the wake up int he morning, they do not know whether they will live to see the rest of their family again.

I do not support what Saddam did at all, but at least the country had an economy, people had a chance to get a job and buy food and water and other essentials, and they had a chance to basically live a life.

[mandalorian2298]

Given your youth its easy to understand how you think 4 years is a long time.

4 years for a war which involves the two strongest military powers in the world and a number of other countries against a country which could not even afford to feed its own people. Also, my statement about 4 years was because you said you expected a "swift victory". If you are ina complete mess after 4 years, how exactly do you expect to achieve a "swift victory"?

He would nuke that whole country of ingrates, so that they finaly learn the lesson.

Anyway, who is the "second strongest military power in the world"? Have China or Russia joined the war while I wasn't looking?

[Norse]

Hehehe, no-one listens to wise old norse...

Whether or not one supports the war, or whether or not one hopes for a swift victory and return of troops (whatever 'victory' means), you will never stop the ideaology behind the machination behind the war.

Most of you fail to even comprehend the reasons why we are at war.

It is not about terrorism, it is not about democracy and freedom, it isn't even about oil.

It is about control.

And i'm watching the grand majority of you puppets with the hand firmly up your asses.

[Iz Man]

I'm not saying he was perfect by any means, but the country was much safer under Saddam

which is a sign of how bad the country is now is it was a safer country underneath an evil idealogical dictator. Hundreds of thousands of people have fled from Iraq into the neighbouring countries because they fear for their lives. When the wake up int he morning, they do not know whether they will live to see the rest of their family again.

Yeah, I forgot the Iraqi people under Saddam had all kinds of freedoms....

I do not support what Saddam did at all, but at least the country had an economy, people had a chance to get a job and buy food and water and other essentials, and they had a chance to basically live a life.

Interesting....... I'm wondering how the families of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people found in mass graves feel about that. I think you may want to do a little more research on the Saddam regime and just how "humanitarian" it was.....

[Norse]

I'm wondering how the families of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people found in mass graves feel about that

I love the politicians in america...so kind hearted to the families of dead iraqi people.

[Iz Man]

I'm wondering how the families of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people found in mass graves feel about that

I love the politicians in America...so kind hearted to the families of dead iraqi people.

I'm a politician?
Now that's insulting.

[vtmarik]

I'm not saying he was perfect by any means, but the country was much safer under Saddam

Well, there weren't any shootings in the street at the scale that there is now. The Iraqis also had an infrastructure (running water, electricity).

which is a sign of how bad the country is now is it was a safer country underneath an evil idealogical dictator. Hundreds of thousands of people have fled from Iraq into the neighbouring countries because they fear for their lives. When the wake up int he morning, they do not know whether they will live to see the rest of their family again.

Yeah, I forgot the Iraqi people under Saddam had all kinds of freedoms....

Well, the system we put in there doesn't exactly scream reform either.

Saddam's Iraq:
"You can agree with us, or we'll gas you."

Bush's Iraq:
"You can agree with us, or we'll shoot you."

Real big difference we're making, eh?

I do not support what Saddam did at all, but at least the country had an economy, people had a chance to get a job and buy food and water and other essentials, and they had a chance to basically live a life.

Interesting....... I'm wondering how the families of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people found in mass graves feel about that. I think you may want to do a little more research on the Saddam regime and just how "humanitarian" it was.....

I'm sure they feel the same way as families of those who have lost children in US bombing campaigns.


What is the moral difference between terrorists beheading a guy on camera and a bomb killing 10 or 12 innocent bystanders in an attack on a terrorist headquarters?

[Norse]

I'm wondering how the families of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people found in mass graves feel about that

I love the politicians in America...so kind hearted to the families of dead iraqi people.

I'm a politician?
Now that's insulting.

Well, obviously.

But you lead me to believe that a great deal of america's policy for going into iraq was based upon them poor, poor executed iraqi civilians. This then shows how kind the politicians are, for standing up to bad-man saddam.

[umanouski]

Anybody who says it's "for oil" just isn't thinking.

No blood for oil! Bush lied, people died! Hey Hey, Ho Ho, George Bush has got to go! Make Love...not War! College - Not Combat! How Many Lives Per Gallon?!!

Think of it this way. WE DONT HAVE THE REFINERIES TO PROCESS THE OIL!!! We have not built a new refinery in over thirty years. Why do you think gas prices are so high???? We cant keep up with demand. We have PLENTY of oil, just the fact we are trying to fit all that crude oil into a old-ass system means we need to build more refineries.

How would you think to solve the energy problem? Wind? NIMBY. Solar? NIMBY. OHHH!!! I got one, lets live like the cavemen?? Without energy? Hell, thats what liberals in congress want to do.

Great quote
Reporter: How have you helped ease gas prices?
Liberal Congressman/Senator: Well, we dropped all the tax breaks on the oil companies?

Someone explain to me how raising taxes is a good thing for anything?

[Guiscard]

Anybody who says it's "for oil" just isn't thinking.

No blood for oil! Bush lied, people died! Hey Hey, Ho Ho, George Bush has got to go! Make Love...not War! College - Not Combat! How Many Lives Per Gallon?!!

Think of it this way. WE DONT HAVE THE REFINERIES TO PROCESS THE OIL!!! We have not built a new refinery in over thirty years. Why do you think gas prices are so high???? We cant keep up with demand. We have PLENTY of oil, just the fact we are trying to fit all that crude oil into a old-ass system means we need to build more refineries.

How would you think to solve the energy problem? Wind? NIMBY. Solar? NIMBY. OHHH!!! I got one, lets live like the cavemen?? Without energy? Hell, thats what liberals in congress want to do.

Great quote
Reporter: How have you helped ease gas prices?
Liberal Congressman/Senator: Well, we dropped all the tax breaks on the oil companies?

Someone explain to me how raising taxes is a good thing for anything?

Not only are you ignorant as to the true story behind the international oil business, you are also ignorant as to the true meaning of Luns post.

[luns101]

Not only are you ignorant as to the true story behind the international oil business, you are also ignorant as to the true meaning of Luns post.

If I don't watch it, nobody will take anything I say seriously anymore. (Not that many do anyway!)

Welcome to the forums, Umanouski. Sorry to have thrown you off track.

[daddy1gringo]

This is what never ceases to amaze me. Every accusation in "Farenheit 911" was proven false, that there never were WMD's, that the Bush administration invented the crisis and the connection between 911 and Iraq, etc., but people still quote the lies as facts. Moore finally said " It was just satire for entertainment, it was never supposed to be a serious documentary." Hogwash. He meant it to do exactly what it did. Persuade many people with lies.

There are no, and there were no, Weapons of Mass Destruction....

And the Bush administration never had reason to believe that there were WMD's. WMD's was just one of many stories that they came up with to justify an invasion of Iraq. ...connections between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, "terrorist training camps", etc etc - all mud thrown in the hopes that some would stick. In other words, the Bush administration was looking for a reason, any halfway-plausible reason to go to war, and to hell with whether it was actually true or not.

Thank you for clarifying my argument. Yes, those are exactly the accusations that Moore was forced to admit were all false, but those who must oppose Bush at all costs continue to repeat with no reason except "but it was in Farenheit 911! It must be true!"

[radiojake]

Think of it this way. WE DONT HAVE THE REFINERIES TO PROCESS THE OIL!!! We have not built a new refinery in over thirty years. Why do you think gas prices are so high???? We cant keep up with demand. We have PLENTY of oil, just the fact we are trying to fit all that crude oil into a old-ass system means we need to build more refineries.

How would you think to solve the energy problem? Wind? NIMBY. Solar? NIMBY. OHHH!!! I got one, lets live like the cavemen?? Without energy? Hell, thats what liberals in congress want to do.

Uhh... 'PLENTY of oil'???

Ignorant f*ck. How's this for a stat. If every human in the world lived the lifestyle that the city of Melbourne live like (a major city in Australia) we would need four planets to sustain everyone. There is not enough oil left to go around - we need new sources of energy and we need them quick. Why is solar and wind energy 'NIMBY' ? (whatever the f*ck that actually means...)

[Carebian Knight]

I have a problem with the war in IRAQ because it was unjustified and had no connections with 9/11. I support American troops in Iraq though, because they did not choose to go to war, and they just do what the idiots in the white house tell them too.

I do, however, support the war in Afghanistan because it is a perfectly justified war that isn't about oil.

That's like saying the American Revolution was unjustified. We may have went to war in Iraq for oil(not saying we did, not saying we didn't) but at least Iraq can be free from people like Saddam Hussein.

[unriggable]

I have a problem with the war in IRAQ because it was unjustified and had no connections with 9/11. I support American troops in Iraq though, because they did not choose to go to war, and they just do what the idiots in the white house tell them too.

I do, however, support the war in Afghanistan because it is a perfectly justified war that isn't about oil.

That's like saying the American Revolution was unjustified. We may have went to war in Iraq for oil(not saying we did, not saying we didn't) but at least Iraq can be free from people like Saddam Hussein.

First of all, who besides Saddam?

And second of all, 78% of the country without power doesn't make them free. People being scared to go outside doesn't make them free, and having walls built around certain boroughs doesn't make them free. Free is what we have now, and the Iraqis were closer to that in the nineties than they are now.

[joecoolfrog]

Well whatever the reason for invading Iraq ,and I certainly cant work out what it was, the fact is that it has turned out to be a fiasco. Blair and Bush have both been tarnished by it,tens of thousands have been killed and it has inflamed the entire Muslim World and increased the threat of terrorism. Those who talk of any kind of victory are sadly deluded,the best we can hope for now is a planned withdrawal over the next 2 years and hopefully not full scale civil war after that.

[luns101]

There is not enough oil left to go around - we need new sources of energy and we need them quick.

Radiojake, that is just factually incorrect.