1. In the last 4000 years no outside nation has been successful at invading and keeping iraq. Many have tried and none have achieved a solution. we will do no better 2. The tribal and religious conflicts in Iraq go back more than 2000 years and have caused constant strife all that time even when we were not there and will not stop because we have suddenly decided to occupy that place. 3. When Iraq was formed in its current geographic borders it was done in such a way ( by Europeans) to include conflicted, unfriendly religious, political, and ethnic groups who never were previously together under one nation and there has been internal strife every since. None of the groups has ever been in the least bit friendly to each other and i do not see it happening in the future. So to put it simply we could hardly have picked a worse place to institute this particular plan. The geography, politics and religious strife and fighting make iraq the least likely place on earth that any kind of democracy will take hold. This is true even if we do not discuss any of the motivations for our present invasion This i say without giving the many other obvious reasons that we will fail which are related to the illegal and improper conduct of war. We will leave those for another discussion

As a Vietnam Vet (volunteer) who served America in war I believe I am qualified to speak to this point. I believe it is improper and Un American to prevent any person from speaking their mind. The manager of the Hotel, Linda Rhomstadt or any other person. Intolerance of opposing points of view is the problem and not the solution. As a voluntary member of the service i suffered from two sides. I suffered from those who were against voluntary service in time of war which i felt then and feel now is an obligation and duty of all citizens. I served even though i was against the war. I believe duty to the constitution and to the country extends beyond your personal point of view and this means that like it or not when the need arises you must willingly go. I suffered later as an anti war veteran and experienced the anger of pro war people who claimed incorrectly that i was anti American even though I served and they did not. I have always been amazed that some of the most pro war were also the ones who avoided conflict, while many of those against the war like me who served were treated badly by both sides. I find it most interesting that these so called patriots never get shot, or put themselves in harms way and yet consider themselves patriots. I think its a load of crap, and self serving nothing more than opportunism. Any person for any reason who disrespects a war vet is scum of the lowest form. Disrespecting policy, is not disrespecting the troops. Disrespecting the policy of the president and speaking out is patriotism, not the contrary. It is bad manners, and Un American to prevent a person from speaking out whatever their point of view. The great American tradition has always been to listen to it and to tolerate it, forming an opinion but not to prevent it. The point being missed here is very important. If those of contrary thinking are prevented from expressing their views then we are subject to being spoon fed by nothing more than scripted news, and limited to the point of view of whom ever is the most powerful. So the issue has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you believe Michael Moore. It has everything to do with whether in the interests of democracy and freedom you will be responsible to review the information presented by Mr. moore and form and opinion after proper investigation of the underlying facts. The Idea that democracy is promoted by controlling freedom of speech is the problem not the solution. Any person who supports the limiting of speech is setting themselves up for some unexpected consequences if the tables turn. Intolerance is poisonous to liberty and freedom. It is inappropriate for Americans to celebrate intolerance. It is dangerous for Americans to fail to listen to those who think differently, if for no other reason than to understand their thinking and give a proper review to the underlying facts. - Leo -

The most important question of the presidential debate was would Mr. bush continue pre emptive wars. The president did not answer the question so we can assume he has plans for more wars. Perhaps now that Mr bush has experienced the exhilaration of war he believes two wars at one time is not enough. Mothers and Fathers prepare your children to get drafted . We will require the blood of your children as the great Bush adventure machine goes forward to more and better conquests. Bush team believes you owe them your children for this crusade, so get ready for the invasion of Iran & Syria. By the time we are in 4 wars even Neo Cons will understand the problem with this reckless and destructive path. U.S. Military Is Stretched Too Thin, Defense Board Warns By Mark Mazzetti The Los Angeles Times Thursday 30 September 2004 Advisory panel calls Army efforts to create more combat brigades 'important, but partial.' Washington - The U.S. military lacks sufficient personnel to meet the nation's current war and peacekeeping demands throughout the world in coming years, despite steps being taken by the Army to stretch its ranks and increase the number of soldiers available for combat, according to a Pentagon advisory board. The report by the Defense Science Board, a panel of outside advisors to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argues that "inadequate total numbers" of troops mean the United States can "not sustain our current and projected global stabilization commitments." Army initiatives to create more combat brigades out of its 10 active divisions are "important, but partial, steps toward enhanced stabilization operations," the panel said. The report offers several options for easing the burdens on a military strained by missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Among them are adding substantial numbers of troops and scaling back the number of peacekeeping missions. The board did not specify troop numbers. The findings surfaced last week when Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) cited the report during a congressional hearing and questioned Rumsfeld about it. Rumsfeld called it an "excellent piece of work" but said the panel probably had not been briefed on the Army's plans to squeeze more out of existing forces before reaching its conclusions.

Well, you get the idea. I've got work, so I'll keep posting all the requested info and comments later.

rbrooku wrote: "No, I think some of his less than brilliant generals did." You probably should be a lot more careful how you write things. That read like you thought Lincoln needlessly butchered thousands. As for your other point, if Bush is re-elected I'm fairly confident we will be seeing a new Secretary of Defense, but that's just my take on it.

i never refered to your relatives. i said i was sickened by your reference to the deaths of all soldiers as help from the enemy. the fact that you drag someones mother into it with lies is equally sickening.

Sork misses the point again: AQ called on all its allies worldwide to go to Iraq to fight the evil Americans. If they had not been called on to go there, they might, even probably, almost certainly, would be fighting somewhere else. It is not that Iraq was all of the enemy, but Iraq was allied to the enemy. Further - Sork falsely states Iraq harbored no terrorists. It even dispatched its own terrorists directly.

Why indeed - Sork? Perhaps you can give us the motive for saying there were no stockpiles of wmd in Iraq? After all, we have captured some, and others have been used in attacks. Still others migrated to Syria, from which an attack was attempted in Jordan, but the attackers and their weapons fell into Jordanian hands. Unless you disbelieve a vast array of media reports, all these data suggest the report is not entirely forthcoming. However, in fairness, part of the problem is the need of media to overly simplify for headlines. The report probably says something like "things were not exactly as expected with respect to stocks" and that is certainly true. We expected active and possibly heavy use of cw by Iraqi forces, and it did not happen. Would you be happier if it did?

Sork asks: How many American soldiers and civilians were killed by 'terrorists' in Iraq before the occupation of Iraq El Cid replies: Many times the number killed since. Thousands. Add up 911, OK city, the Embassy bombings in Africa, USS Cole, and all the other terrorist incidents since OBL declared war on the USA. Certainly in excess of 5,000.

Rebrooku, be careful about whom you call a "bonehead" after all the boneheaded posts you have made. You have yet to propose a strategy half as good as the present one. We asked you to - but you never tried. We all know that that means - and it doesn't mean you have one to offer.