Rebrooku, why do you make assertions at variance with the facts? The oil supply has not declined since 2003 - it has increased. Demand also has increased, notably from China, but supply did not go down. And it would be a good deal higher than it is if there was no trouble in Venezuela or Nigeria - places utterly unaffected by the US invasion of Iraq. And the statement that you "know" the decision to invade Iraq was made "because" of oil interests is quite false. The Oil Editor of WSJ is not wrong - there were much less risky ways to increase oil from Iraq. The decision was taken IN SPITE OF the implications for oil: it was assumed the war might risk serious oil disruption due to sabatage, for example. The policy discussions were always in terms of much more political factors, and IMHO it is momre valid to complain that this administration has NOT considered economic factors enough. It certainly has not opted to raise taxes to pay for increased expendatures, something one might have expected of "balanced budget" Republicans. I think we may be soeing the seeds of a major inflation in the decade ahead if we don't think about what we are doing in the economic sense. So far everyone in the loop is saying that is secondary. It is only an assumption - and a quite false assumption - that oil drove the invasion decision. And I think it is time someone pointed out that the lack of troops problem is imposed on this administration by Clinton era cuts, which were not justified at the time. Clinton should have invaded Iraq, enforcing the armistice that it violated over and over again. If he had, it would not have been a policy issue in 2003. Failing to enforce an armistice always is a bad idea and terrible policy.

I also am independent, a charter member of the Libertarian party in three states, as well as a person who has been both a Republican and a Democratic delegate. In the days before word processors, when correcting text was a nightmare, I also got to write a state constitution, because I was willing to type and retype and retype as required by changes at a convention. But I wrote the basic text, based on my guess what would be agreed, to minimize retyping. So we may be more alike than you realize. One former minority activist, an attorney named Philip Lopez, once noted about me "You are not really a conservative. You only appear to be a conservative because of the way you use language. You are a truly independent thinker who never allows ideology to drive your opinioin. You come to your own conclusions for sound, and often unconventional reasons." It is not really true that this war policy is driven by the right. This administration, much more than the one which preceeded it, listens to people not on the right. Note that the defense secretary and one other cabinet official were inherited from Clinton. Nothing like the Clinton decision to fire all Republican Federal Attornies. Similarly, there is no subject that will get you fired like writing "China might be a problem" would in the Clinton era, in any agency. The administration is much more open to policy debate than that. The only sense in which it is a right strategy is the degree to which many on the left are deliberately not participating. But I note that many are. Even Hillery is not speaking irresponsibly, as say Kerry is.

News Flash: The War on Terror - which I think ought to be renamed and refocused - was the primary driver for the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. Further, it was sound strategy, in spite of my personal preference not to tie up the US army as it has done, because I have concerns about China and Korea. You are ignoring what Chemist told you about Iraqs geostrategic position. IF you were willing to participate in serious policy debate, meaning devote the time it takes to get all the briefs and digest them, I bet you, like me, would end up supporting the decision as well. I hope so - for it is in your interests that the decision was taken - as much as anyone elses. The fact is, it was a better move than most other possibilites available. If you wish to criticize the execution, fine, but that is different. Colon Powell put it best the other day in a University forum: "I never was asked to do anything it was hard to support doing." He may have been ignored or overruled, but in the end the basic policy was quite sound.

I never did buy classical Western thinking on wmd. I did my best to challenge that thinking, and find practical solutions (which is different from saying "ban the bomb" period). I managed to write something both left and right found persuasive in the 1980s. But I find the left is much more enamored of classical wmd thinking than the right, and many are dedicated to the proposition of perpetuating it forever. I participated in developing defenses against "undetectable" and "unstoppable" missiles, which worked from 1968 to 1972 in Viet Nam and which worked on a larger scale in 1973 when IDF adopted the same techniques in an intense conflict (stopping all 54 of 54 missiles fired at their naval units). I am not big on accepting destruction as inevitable, logical, moral or legal. But I am also not a foolish pacifist who imagines there might not be a need to fight a battle and fight to win. Are you a supporter of real defenses INSTEAD of psychological defenses like MAD?

Oldman, you are close, but not quite right on the facts. We are indeed at war with militant Islam, something you do not seem to realize is a minor subset of (and heresy against) main stream Islam. And the war did not begin in 1979, but when OBL declared it, and initiated the series of attacks against us - about ten years ago. But it is true that the problem of militant Islam was around before that, and is an important context for OBL and his second organization, Al Qaida.

Why do you oppose the invasion of Iraq? After months of debate, involving people outside the administration and outside the country, the people appointed by those elected to office made a decision. That decision was ratified by the Congress. We are in a war we did not begin. You should support a lawful decision made by the lawful government of our country. Why do you not? What happened to "united we stand?" I put up with eight years of horrible China policy by President Clinton, who ran for office on a platform that said he would be tougher on China than Bush the First. He also refused to take custody of OBL when Sudan offered him to us, and he refused to end the rule of Saddam when it became clear he had zero intention of honoring the terms ending the 1991 war. If you expect me to accept policy by such a President, why are you not required to accept policy by a different PResident, one who at least does not make decisions by reading opinon polls?

We were in a state of war with Iraq already, and had been for 12 years, paused only by a cease-fire that was conditioned upon compliance with UN resolutions. "Iraq fired upon US and British planes in the no-fly zones daily. Not only was Iraq not complying with UN resolutions, it wasn't even complying with the cease-fire itself." That cannot be the reason. North Korea occassionally fires at Japan. Isreal record on UN resolutions is not great... Rumsfield within half an hour of 9/11 suggested the invasion of Iraq... this documentated by Woodward. (Yes the same Rumsfield who shaking the blood soaked hands of the Baathist leadership in 1986). The reason why Iraq was invaded was because there was regime change in the USA.

“Rebrooku, why do you make assertions at variance with the facts? The oil supply has not declined since 2003 - it has increased. Demand also has increased, notably from China, but supply did not go down.” The context was Iraq, but the counter argument here is to confuse and distract attention from this. “it is momre valid to complain that this administration has NOT considered economic factors enough. It certainly has not opted to raise taxes to pay for increased expendatures, something one might have expected of "balanced budget" Republicans.” Republicans have given up fiscal responsibility turned to catering to the greed and selfishness for votes. This is a very effective political technique, even if, as Lord Alexander Tytler so famously pointed out, it inevitably leads to the decline of a Republic. Something usually overlooked in history, is that the expectation is always the liberals will cause the fall of a Republic, when historically it always turns out to be the conservatives. The mechanism for this is really quite simple; when the fiscal conservatives realize they cannot achieve and maintain power without resorting to giving from the public treasury, they abandon their fiscal restraint for the lure of power. Happens every time in history, and seems to be the present case also. “And the statement that you "know" the decision to invade Iraq was made "because" of oil interests is quite false. “ I will agree with this. My statement was based on the deduction of practical and provable concerns, but I forgot to consider purely personal dogmatic reasoning as a possible driving force for the invasion. Practically, oil would be a valid reason, as the American economy is entirely dependent on it. We did not invade any given number of other countries which would have made more sense in terms of “liberating” or in terms of defending ourselves against the terrorists who attacked us, and the only real difference with those other countries was they did not have a huge oil reserve that was not being vigorously exploited and sold. So, deductively what we can say we “know” is that if it was not for oil, then it was for political leverage, which is also a practical goal. So we could say blood for votes instead of blood for oil. Take your pick.

"It is not really true that this war policy is driven by the right. This administration, much more than the one which preceeded it, listens to people not on the right." Really, if you are all that independent, reconsider that statement. "The people" is a truly amorphous political entity. Which people who are influenced by what media presentations of reality? Truly, a circular machine of an echo chamber, or what has also been called "group think". Get a better idea of how the dogmatic faith in WMD’s came about? And, that bit about the Clinton administration, hoo boy! I know you heard about “triangulation”, which was nothing if not listening to the other side.

“News Flash: The War on Terror - which I think ought to be renamed and refocused - was the primary driver for the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. Further, it was sound strategy, in spite of my personal preference not to tie up the US army as it has done, because I have concerns about China and Korea. You are ignoring what Chemist told you about Iraqs geostrategic position.” So Bush lied about knowing Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (like he’s been implying all along)? And “Iraq’s geostrategic position”? Is that a joke? No? Then, we should invade Switzerland? After all, it’s right in the middle of Europe, and those damn Swiss bankers help the terrorists launder untold billions. Oh yah, they’re cooperating, as far as we know, but the Weapons of Mass [secret] Accounts they must be secretly holding would literally end the war on terror in one stroke if we invaded and got ahold of ‘em! P.S. Thanks for the dark humour, good thing I appreciate it.