This is not a subject where the masses have the knowledge to express an informed answer. The people that know the Moslems and how they think know our attacking Iraq has put us in greater danger because of the NEW terrorists that have been added to those that hated us BEFORE we invaded Iraq. There have always been terrorists that wanted to do us harm. Our actions have added to their numbers and made them even more resolute to continue attacking us. WE ARE NOT SAFER FROM ATTACKING IRAQ! In addition, Iraq was NEVER a danger to the U. S.We have made Iraq part of the War on Terrorism. It was just an evil dictatorship prior to our invasion and one with a weakened military and No WMD. IF Bush had allowed the UN inspectors to complete their job, he would have learned what we know now- there was no WMD. Saddam most likely wanted everyone to think he had WMD to help retain control and deter others, like Iran , from attacking him.

No matter what we do col, muslims will hate us. It's the fault of islam itself, and nothing else.

Island Dog I agree. We have just added to the number that are willing to attack us! That does not make us MORE secure.

This is not a subject where the masses have the knowledge to express an informed answer.

Yes, only the omniscient Gene has the knowledge.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Daiwa You should look as what the Moslem Governments in the area that have relations with us have said. They have told us that our attacking Iraq has put pressure on them from the terrorists that want to disrupt ANY government that deals with us. Thus, our actions have increased pressuse for more 9/11 attacks in America as well as aginst governments in the greater Middle East that deal with us. I had the opportunity to talk directly with Middle East expents while at the Army War College. I have done a lot of reading from people who have spent their entire lives working in the Moslem World. These experts, for the most part agree, we have NOT MADE AMERICA SAFER by the Iraq War. Our brave military believe they are serving in Iraq to make us safer at home when their efforts have actually made us less safe by embolding our enemies all over the world.

You should look as what the Moslem Governments in the area that have relations with us have said. They have told us that our attacking Iraq has put pressure on them from the terrorists that want to disrupt ANY government that deals with us.

Good. Pressure on Arab governments is good.

That means they will have to stop looking at us and what we did to make them hate us and look at themselves.

The more enemies the terrorists make, the better.

I had the opportunity to talk directly with Middle East expents while at the Army War College. I have done a lot of reading from people who have spent their entire lives working in the Moslem World. These experts, for the most part agree, we have NOT MADE AMERICA SAFER by the Iraq War.

And I can show you "experts" who believe the opposite. But you don't bother to read those do you col?

Our brave military believe they are serving in Iraq to make us safer at home when their efforts have actually made us less safe by embolding our enemies all over the world.

Once again col you or the radical left do not speak for our soldiers. People like you put our soliders in more danger.

And I can show you "experts" who believe the opposite. But you don't bother to read those do you col?

I don't recall there being many experts who paint a rosy picture of Iraq. What exactly do you consider to be the goals of the war, and the successes?

We have killed almost 2,000 Americans and have made us LESS not MORE safe.

No WE have not killed 2000 Americans, if you are now a terrorist over in Iraq you can say that you have killed this number of Americans but we haven't as a country. I am disgusted by this statement.

Indiviudal soldiers with narrow perspectives will have individual opinions, so you accept them for what they are

What makes their perspectives narrow? I know many sodiers who have deployed to Iraq and they have many opinions on the issues and I certainly wouldn't call them narrow. Do you have Narrow opinions as I assume you were once a soldier?
You seem to be very anti soldiers, maybe I am reading you wrong, I certainly hope so.

It is OUR policy to attack a Moslem country that did not pose any danger to the United Stares that has caused the death of over 1,900 of our military and 25,000 injuries. If you do not like the sound of that, blame Bush. WE did not have to invade Iraq. They were not ready or able to attack us and were not responsible for 9/11. I have a lot more reguard for the lives of our military then to risk them for ANYTHING but our safety.

This is not a subject where the masses have the knowledge to express an informed answer.

---ColdefectiveGenes

Yes, and this is because, like you, "the masses" are listening to the MSM; so no, they don't have knowledge, because only half the story is offered to them. Despite all the evidence showing this to be fact, you steadfastly ignore it. That is a choice you make Col, based on your own biased opinions.

maybe I am reading you wrong, I certainly hope so.

--infantry wife

No, you ar reading him right, to an extent. He despises the president, and anything he does, to the point of irrationality. If Bush crapped gold bricks and peed liquid silver and gave it all to the poor, Gene would say he was buying votes (ignoring the fact that he can't be re-electd).
As a result of this unreasoning hatred, he completely discounts any positive input the soldiers, especially those there and actually fighting, may have about the Iraq war.
See, his source is the Great and Terrible MSM....and they're never biased or wrong.
The soldiers don't know anthing, because their knowledge comes firsthand, unfiltered by the pure and blameless news media that Gene trusts so much, so what can they POSSIBLY know that he doesn't know better or different?

Gene, for every soldier you find who opposes the war, there is another soldier of equal or greater qualifications who supports it.

John Kerry found several veterans to support his candidacy. And it turned out that there were several more veterans willing to oppose it.

Even the families of soldiers follow the same nullifying patterns. Casey Sheehan's mother opposes the war, but the mother of one of the other soldiers that died in the same attack supports the war. And let's not forget that both Casey and this other soldier both supported the war.

So I'll see your two Marine snipers, and raise you two army grunts who willingly made the ultimate sacrifice for a cause they believed in.

And they're not the only soldiers who disagree with your two Marines, either.

Tell me: If I came up with four soldiers who disagree with your two soldiers, would you drop your objections to the war and agree with me?

Tell me: If I came up with four soldiers who disagree with your two soldiers, would you drop your objections to the war and agree with me?

No, he'd say they were just brainwashed lackies of the Imperial Bush Cadre, while his two were free thinkers, braver and better than yours for telling the truth in the face of administration pressure and threats.

You all ignore the central issue of the Iraq War. It is NOT making us safer as we have told our brave military it will. Most of them believe there efforts are helping make America safer as Bush is telling everyone. That is untrue. Iraq was NEVER the source of the terrorism that put America in danger. There was no reason we had to attack Iraq-- There was no Dec 7th. Iraq did not have an Army or the weapons to make them a danger to us. Every day more and more stories about the discord between the three factions comes out. Now the tension between the Kurds and the Shiite majority is developing in addition to the split between the Sunni and Shiites. Iraq is in the verge of a civil war as none of the three factions can agree with each other. This could turn into the biggest diaster for America since Vietnam. Wait to see what happens after the election on the 15th. Now the Shiits majority set new rules for approval and disapproval of the constitution. That change says that to approve requires the majority of the VOTERS. To disapprove requires disapproval 2/3 of ALL REGISTERED VOTERS. Two different meanings for the word VOTERS. An easier one to approve and a harder one to diapprove.

You all ignore the central issue of the Iraq War. It is NOT making us safer as we have told our brave military it will. Most of them believe there efforts are helping make America safer as Bush is telling everyone. That is untrue. Iraq was NEVER the source of the terrorism that put America in danger. There was no reason we had to attack Iraq-- There was no Dec 7th. Iraq did not have an Army or the weapons to make them a danger to us. Every day more and more stories about the discord between the three factions comes out. Now the tension between the Kurds and the Shiite majority is developing in addition to the split between the Sunni and Shiites. Iraq is in the verge of a civil war as none of the three factions can agree with each other. This could turn into the biggest diaster for America since Vietnam. Wait to see what happens after the election on the 15th. Now the Shiits majority set new rules for approval and disapproval of the constitution. That change says that to approve requires the majority of the VOTERS. To disapprove requires disapproval 2/3 of ALL REGISTERED VOTERS. Two different meanings for the word VOTERS. An easier one to approve and a harder one to diapprove.

They had no army? Then what the hell were our guys facing when this first started? Boy Scouts? And btw....YOU'RE the one that brought up those Marine snipers. And as per usual, when you're called on it you change the subject. How lame!

I see col you have been proven wrong yet again, and you resort to the usual moveon.org rhetoric.

The Army Iraq had was incapable of causing any danger to the United States. Even when we invaded Iraq, they were as effective as the Boy Scouts. NONE of you has proven me wrong. I said Iraq was no danger to the U S. Prove they were a danger. No effective Army. No Air Force or Navy. No WMD. No Terrorist operations prior to us deposing Saddam. You are all full of BS just like Bush!

Col. Tukhachevsky, there are facts you are ignoring too:

Saddam's regime lacked the ability to develop WMD's. The reason why? UN Sanctions. The problem with UN Sanctions on Iraq? The Mohammedans blamed them on the United States. Problem with that? Madeline Albright erroneously conceded that the sanctions were killing millions of Iraqis, especially children. Problem with that? Osama Bin Laden used it prominently as one of his justifications for attacks on Americans - 1998 Embassy Bombings, Millennium Bomb Plot, USS Cole, Sept. 11.

NONE of you has proven me wrong.

Yes we have col. Just the fact that you can't admit you were proved wrong about the 2000 elections says enough about your integrity.

I said Iraq was no danger to the U S. Prove they were a danger.

But Hilllary Clinton, John Kerry, and other leading democrats said Iraq was a threat. Were they lying col?

No Terrorist operations prior to us deposing Saddam. You are all full of BS just like Bush!

Col, the head of al qaeda in Iraq, was in Iraq before the war. Do you think he was on vacation?

The 2000 election turned on 3,500 votes that were double punched in error and NEVER COUNTED. Had those 3,500 voters requested a new balot when they discovered they had punched the wrong person, Bush would NOT have won Florida.

None of those people thought the risk was worth sending American Military to attack Iraq. That includes George H. W. Bush!

The CIA just recently said there was no al qaeda operating in Iraq until AFTER we removed Saddam from power. Today they are more of a danger, according to the CIA, operating in Iraq than in Afghanistan prior to the Iraq war. We have made the danger greater with MORE terrorists willing to attack us all over the world. Just look at the continued terrorist actions in Iraq and in other countries.

The 2000 election turned on 3,500 votes that were double punched in error and NEVER COUNTED. Had those 3,500 voters requested a new balot when they discovered they had punched the wrong person, Bush would NOT have won Florida.

The votes were counted col. Why does this simple fact escape you? And as usual, it's your assumption they would have voted for Gore, not fact. Just imagine if all those dead people didn't vote for Gore, he would have lost his so-called margin.

None of those people thought the risk was worth sending American Military to attack Iraq.

I have showed quotes and interviews from democrats who said Iraq was a threat, and they were producing WMD's. You avoided the question. Were the democrats lying?

The CIA just recently said there was no al qaeda operating in Iraq until AFTER we removed Saddam from power.

You avoided the question again col. What was one of al qaeda's top men doing in Iraq after being wounded in the Afghanistan war? Vacation maybe?

The 3,500 votes in Palm Beach County were VOIDED because they were double punched. They were NOT COUNTED. As I have said, if those 3,500 voters who made an error by punching the balot for the third party candidate ( Top Position) and asked for a new balot to correct their vote properly by punching the NEW balot for Gore ( second position), Bush would have lost Florida by just under 3,000 votes.

The Democrats believed the lies about WMD and the danger to the US from Saddam. Had the data that intelligence agents had and were afraid to bring forward, the Senate would never have voted for the war. Knowing what we know today, do any of you Bushies believe the Senate would approved the war resolution today?

The al qaeda leaders travel all over that area. They were NOT operating in Iraq prior to the war and the CIA has said that.. Iraq became part of the war on terrorism AFTER we brought down the Saddam government. Even Powell has said he was mislead about what he told the UN in Feb 2003.

Are you saying, Gene, that those were the only voided ballots in the US? Otherwise, we would have to go back and decide somehow what the voter intended on all voided ballots everywhere in the US. And there's the rub - if you screw up your vote, that's it. We can't have committees of people like you guessing what people really meant when they screwed up their ballot. If the reason for that isn't obvious to you, explaining would be a waste of time.

Cheers,
Daiwa

The Ugly truth? Col Klink let Hogan escape again!