Who knows? You could be right, but it's unknowable. Globally about 100 million lives were lost in WW II. I don't know what ramifications that has in 2007. There is no control group.

I'm not trying to be flip, but people tend to see bad things and assume any other course of action would have resulted in something better. No one knows what the situation in the world would be if we hadn't invaded Iraq. Perhaps things would be better, perhaps NYC would be radioactive. At any rate, Iraq would certainly be violent and not akin to suburban Connecticut.

I personally feel that Syria should have been bombed shortly after the Iraq invasion, as soon as it became clear they were aiding the terrorists in Iraq. Would that have improved things today? I think so, but I don't know. What seems clear to me historically is that total war (WW II and the Civil War) works, however gruesome. By lacking the nerve to kill our enemies decisively, in large numbers, and with the risk of considerable collateral damage, we end up prolonging the war along with the death and misery.

At any rate I'm just a guy on the Internet.

First, isn't it true that the same arguments (prevention of collapse into civil war, that is) were made against pulling out of Vietnam? Now 32 years after withdrawal, the country is far from where opponents envisioned it.

At the same time, it's certainly true that the fledgling Iraqi police and army aren't yet ready to fly and would, at the very least, greatly struggle if left alone in the nest.

One thing we certainly need not continue is being so divided over this issue. Why is there not more focus on this? Why do hardcores on each side continually antagonize the opposite side? In my opinion this is not a respectable way to work toward one's ends

What I do believe is that the mainstream media (for lack of a better term) coverage of this and all wars should be severely restricted (in my Utopian view it would be such voluntarily, but I understand this isn't going to happen). It should in the same manner be prohibited from editorials or op ed's regarding the topic. It should hesitate to report on military justice matters (especially those still pending judgement). It should not discourage dissent, but certainly not encourage it. Most of all, it should specifically refrain from its demonizing of the American servicemember.

We lose roughly 42,000 per year on our highways, 2,000 to 4,000 of which due to CAFE standards (now there's blood for oil).

During the Cold War we lost an average of 1,900 military personnel per year due to accidents.

Folks that think Iraq is a disaster might want to check out stuff that happened in previous centuries. Google "Iwo Jima" or "Battle of the Bulge" for example.

just asking questions and pointing out where liberals are coming from, sorry if it was not entertaining for you.

Its not easy to come new ways to make fun of liberals who only say the same old baseless propagandic uneducated trivial Donkeypoop over and over and over and over and over and over.............times infinity and over again.

The Forth Rail...billroggio.com
Small Wars Journal
Counter Terrorism Blog
MilBlog... great for gettin soldiers perspective
Mudville Gazette
Foreign Policy passport

You know someone supports Bin Laden when they use that term to describe the president.

They are going for the readership of the terrorists saying exactly what Al Queda wants them to say and kissing Bin laden on his privates like all the withdraw now people do so the terrorists inside this country must be bigger numbers than I thought.

Turn tail and run like whiny little girls because of trouble.

The human rights thing has to work for both sides in order for it to have much meaning. He kind of comes off like another guy saying "when we kill it is for the good, when they do it is proof they are evil." Not very original.

The fact that his work has been an influence on Bush policy is hardly something to brag about, considering that almost all of Bush's policies have been train wrecks...

What Kathy said.

Ok, part of what what Kathy said was:

Iraq is a catastrophe beyond the power of any words to adequately describe it...

One can write this only if one is ignorant of history, the many disasters that have been much worse, and the many great historians who have written about them. May I suggest starting with Herodotus and working forward. The Liberation of Iraq isn't even the worst disaster of the 21st century. That award goes to the ongoing genocide in Darfur.

And a couple commenters should be ashamed of what they wrote concerning Natan Sharansky. You do not seem to know much about the man whose words, commitment and intent you abuse with profane words and insults. Grow up.

Yet they have failed miserably to pacify a small country, or even bring a semblance of order, in more than four years time, with 3,700 dead troops and hundreds of billions of dollars spent. Any executive in business who so completely bungled a major project would be out on his ear.

As far as the talk of "surrender", "anti-Americanism" and all the other smears, in the last election the President said very bluntly, "If the Democrats win, the terrorists win". Americans, including in "flyover country" like Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania, immediately went out and handed Republicans their walking papers. It was even worse in New England and the West.

The only logical conlusion is that Americans hate America and love terrorists. Or perhaps this kind of talk has lost its effectiveness with a public that no longer believes Bush or his supporters and who, by a large majority, want an end to the Iraq War. Bush instead gave them an expanded Iraq War because I don't think he got the message. It seems another message will have to be delivered to the Republican Party in November of 2008.