Please Explain to Me

"If you believe that they "Support the troops" you would have to ignore the fact that immediately after sending the troops over they cut 19 billion dollars from veteran's affairs. Not to mention the effects of exposure to depleted uranium."
I will post a comment on this subject. I served in America military during the Clinton Administration and into the Bush administration. I wont deny that during the Clinton administration the military was a quiet place to work, and of course after 9-11 it became a job true to the military fashion. I will say that our military was better funded where it counts during the Bush administration, and from 1st hand knowledge the vast majority of the US military would rathe serve under the Bush admin, rather than the Clinton admin. What gets in the way is the wars that followed 9-11. People don't want to die, so people don't want to enlist for that fear, and it is true that the military lifestyle is much more difficult now, for a family, than it was back then, but you join the military knowing that you may have to do a job, and it wasn't untill 9-11 that the US military really had a job to due.

You can count on the fact that these disloyal right wingers will not come up with a reasoned defense of Bush. After all, it is impossible to defend what is obviously indefensible. Remember that their loyalty is to Bush, not to America.

Patriotism is honorable. Disloyalty is contemptible. And their contemptible behavior is to be condemned.


As for torturing people, see =

Torture Applauded by Bush



The torture battle royal

The public violation of the Geneva convention has created a schism between the president and military

Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday September 21, 2006
The Guardian

President Bush's torture policy has provoked perhaps the greatest schism between a president and the military in American history. From the outside, this battle royal over his abrogation of the Geneva conventions appears as a shadow war. But since the supreme court's ruling in Hamdan v Rumsfeld in June, deciding that Bush's kangaroo court commissions for detainees "violate both the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice] and the four Geneva conventions", the struggle has been forced into the open.

On September 6 Bush made his case for torture, offering as validity the interrogation under what he called an "alternative set of procedures" of an al-Qaida operative named Abu Zubaydah. Bush claimed he was a "senior terrorist leader" who "ran a terrorist camp" and had provided accurate information about planned terrorist attacks. In fact, Zubaydah was an al-Qaida travel agent (literally a travel agent), who, under torture, spun wild scenarios of terrorism that proved bogus. Zubaydah, it turns out, is a psychotic with the intelligence of a child. "This guy is insane, certifiable," said Dan Coleman, an FBI agent assigned to the al-Qaida taskforce.

Bush's argument for torture is partly based on the unstated premise that the more sadism, the more intelligence. While he referenced Zubaydah, he did not mention Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl, described by the FBI, according to the New Yorker, as "arguably the US's most valuable informant on al-Qaida", who is wined, dined and housed by the federal witness protection programme.

On September 15 the Senate armed services committee approved a bill affirming the Geneva conventions, sponsored by three Republicans with military backgrounds - John Warner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham. The former secretary of state Colin Powell, Bush's "good soldier," released a letter denouncing Bush's version. "The world," he wrote, "is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," and Bush's bill "would add to those doubts". That sentiment was underlined in another letter signed by 29 retired generals and CIA officials. General John Batiste, former commander of the 1st army division in Iraq, appeared on CNN to scourge the administration's policy as "unlawful", "wrong", and responsible for Abu Ghraib.

Before the committee vote, Bush's administration had tried to coerce the top military lawyers, the judge advocates general (JAGs), into signing a statement of uncritical support, which they refused to do. The Republican senators opposing Bush's torture policy first learned about the military's profound opposition from the JAGs. For years, the administration has considered them subversive and tried to eliminate them as a separate corps and substitute neoconservative political appointees.

In the summer of 2004 General Thomas J Fiscus, the top air force JAG, informed the senators that the administration's assertion that the JAGs backed Bush on torture was utterly false. Suspicion instantly fell upon Fiscus, one of the most aggressive opponents of torture policy, as the senators' source. Within weeks he was drummed out under a cloud of anonymous allegations by Pentagon officials of "improper relations" with women. His discharge was trumpeted in the press, but his role in the torture debate remained unknown.

Bush had intended to use his post-Hamdan bill to taint the Democrats, but instead he has split his party and further antagonised the military. His standoff on torture threatens to leave no policy whatsoever, and leave his war on terror in a twilight zone beyond the rule of law.

· Sidney Blumenthal is a former senior adviser to President Clinton. To buy his book, How Bush Rules, for £16.95 plus p&p call 0870 836 0749 or visit www.guardianbookshop.co.uk

sidney_blumenthal@yahoo.com

You say the you want an open honest discussion, yet some of your other text does not come across that way. When it is inferred that reasonable people with all the facts will only believe the way you do, you have poisoned the well and loaded the questions upfront.
Well I am hear to say that I am reasonable and well informed, yet I do not believe the way you do.
I do not understand all the snippets of your discussion, but I will try to hit the main topics.
Why do I support the Presidency?
Because I feel they are doing the right thing most of the time. I qualified my statement because I don't always agree with every policy (it's an imperfect world no one is 100% spot on all the time), just most of the policies. With that stated reasons further explanation would be best shown in discussing some of the policies and issues you brought up.

Iraq War
The Iraq war was not about them attacking us on 9/11. Why? Because Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks, that was Al-Qaida.
But the attacks on 9/11 did start the war on terrorism. Well really the terrorist had declared war on us years before; it just took 9/11 to happen for the government to realize it was time to fight back.
Now Iraq under Saddam did qualify as a front for the war on terrorism because of its support and use of terrorism.
Here is a REALLY important point to understand: If the war was just against Al-Qaida, there would be no purpose what so ever to wage war with Iraq. But the war isn't just about the perpetrator of 9/11, but all uses of terrorism that endanger US citizens at home and abroad.
There was more than one reason for going to war with Iraq (But usually only one gets all the attention.
Reasons:
- By intelligence from more countries than ours, it was reported that Saddam was working on weapons of mass destruction. (By the way, if you hadn't heard we have found some of those illusive WMD's.)
- Saddam had broken the treaty of the first Gulf War (i.e. shooting at our planes that were making sure he was behaving himself, working on and buying banned weapons, etc.).
- Saddam was a sponsor of terror (He gave scholarships to families of suicide bomber who would blow themselves up anywhere in Israeli territory. Yes, not too many people remember this, but Saddam actively tried to destroy all peace talks between Israel and Palestine.)
- Saddam was a danger to his own people and his neighbors (i.e. gassing Kurds, bombing Israel with scud missiles, invading and attempting to invade neighboring countries, etc.).

Why hasn't it been easy in Iraq?
1. We took so much time trying to gather international support, that intelligence sources were burnt giving Saddam time to move and/or bury things once we lost our eyes on the ground.
2. Turkey backed out on us at the last moment. Turkey was to be the launching point for our northern front. We made do by sending in paratroopers, but it was only a faction of what was planned for and almost no vehicles. This left the area north of Baghdad known as the Sunni triangle unstable for too long.
3. Democracy takes time and a lot of work. Heck, our first constitution was a flop. If your interested read up on the Articles of Confederation.

Oh, I know this wasn't brought up but I has long been a point of annoyance with me, so I got to mention the Mission Accomplished banner. Wars are broken up in to missions, missions into battles, battles into skirmishes. If missions are big enough, they get names. When Pres. Bush stood on the deck of that aircraft carrier with the banner behind him, he was speaking before soldier who had just finish the mission call Iraqi Freedom. The mission they were shipped out for was done or in other words accomplished. The banner never said the war was over; all it said was these soldiers had completed part of the war.

Stem-cell Research
- If you strip away all the rhetoric, leave religion out of it, and stop the wild theories about when the spark of life begins; you are left with one fundamental rule of science which says any piece of matter that can perform cell division on its own is ALIVE!
- Stem-cell research has a lot of promises of what scientist think it MIGHT be able to do, but no one really knows if it can even cure one thing.
- Pres. Bush blocked governmental funding on research of new stem-cell lines. That means private funding is still wide open.
- The block of government funding has lead researchers who want to stay on the government dole to broaden their view of way study stem-cell including adult stem-cells.

Economy
It has always perplexed me that some of the biggest supporters of "Keep the Feds out of my private life" are also the ones who want Washington to "fix" the economy.
Oh well, on to a couple points.
- The surplus talked about in the 2000 election was a projected surplus (Meaning it hadn't happened yet).
- The economy started to slow down in the last 6 month on Pres. Clinton's presidency. This slow down was exacerbated by the months of on going recounts for the 2000 election. If Gore had conceded earlier, the economy wouldn't have suffered as much loss.
- 9/11 did succeed in making a blow to our economy.
- The government hasn't run in the black for over half a century (That's long before both Bushs' terms in office).

Last point, the Gitmo/Auschwitz comparison is an apple/oranges comparison. Auschwitz held innocent citizen of their own country in death camps. Gitmo holds the worst of the combatants that fought against us on the battlefield in clean cells with three meals a day and time set aside for the many daily prayer devotionals. The two are nowhere near the same.

Wow Christine! My Father feels almost exactly the same way about everything. His rationale stems from a consuming hatred of Cheney, but I guess a deep hatred of GW Bush would yield the same results. Everything he sees wrong he traces back to the Bush administration some how. I guess it's kind of the same way Arabs seem to trace everything negative back to Israel (and I'm sure you would add "to Bush" by extension.)

I see a lot of the same logical leaps in his thinking that I see in your article. I encourage you not to give up on the country. You should start feeling better in about two years. Bush can't run, and I don't believe Cheney will either.
I am sorry you feel everyone who does not agree with you is misinformed. My Father is convinced of that too. Some of us feel that there really are some evil people out there who mean to do us harm. Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and al Zarkawi (up until recently,) for example.

My father tends to see these folks as good people who were pushed over the line by Bush foreign policy. I would not be surprised if you feel that way too. I am not sure how either of you would explain the first WTC attack. Many of us feel the above mentioned folks, and others, actually are evil.

I do not always see eye to eye with the current administration, but I support them over the alternatives that were presented, because I feel the alternatives were not going to be able to take the necessary action against the evil doers in the world. When it came time to vote I was not misinformed and I was not alone.

I just want to inject two things into the discussion.

Number one is that UN economic sanctions were invented to try to prevent war in modern society. We were supposed to be able to rein in evil economically, rather than militarily. This was foiled by the fact that certain entities figured out how to cheat the system for personal gain. One of those entities was apparently Mr. George Galloway, who I would bet you have in the "Hero" column. Because of the cheating that took place with the "Oil for Food" program, Saddam received enough cash to withstand the sanctions. He also received enough cash to at least appear be a player in the WMD black market. He also received enough cash to bribe his way into a sense that he could safely ignore the UN Security Counsel. The bottom line is that some of the very people who claim to be anti war probably cheated us out of the best means we had to actually avoid war. I would argue that my father's hero George Galloway is more responsible for the war than George Bush.

Here is another item to ponder. Much has been written explaining how American foreign policy is responsible for causing terrorism. Do you know which US president was the first to send troops into battle against radical Muslim terrorists? It was Thomas Jefferson in 1802. The US did not yet have much of a foreign policy.

Thanks for listening Christine.

Conservatives rule the media? lol The mainstream media is liberal! By the way, how does Sean Hannity teach hate? Can you provide evidence?

I am absolutely gobsmacked that people still believe the invasion of Iraq was justified!
Aaran, no disrespect but where have you been for the last three years? Saddam buried his weapons, the Turks wouldn't allow access through their territory? It was completely and utterly irrelevant. The Iraqis had no airforce! Iraq was a third world country due to the sanctions! It was the equivalent of the invasion of Grenada in the 1980s, this was no test for the US military. The US army has not fought a conventional war since Korea. Neither has it fought a victorious campaign on it's own since WW2 with the exception of the defeat of the might Grenada and the Cuban engineers.

Christine you are 100% correct in calling people who accept the Bush mal-administrations brainwashing , misinformed. They have been deliberately misinformed and maybe they cannot accept that a government they believe in can deliberately lie, and play to their own agenda at the expense of the trust which no doubt many Republicans blindly gave them.

"The US did not yet have much of a foreign policy. " Neither was there such a thing as "terrorists". Your own country Bill, was created by what would now be called "terrorism". Any people which attempts to throw off the shackles of it's oppressors is automatically labelled by the occupying state and it's allies as "terrorists". It is a term very casually used without examing the reasons why "terrorists" take the action they do. Nation states use terrorism as a tactic all the time but is not referred to as such bythe media, but thats what it is.

US foreign policy is 100% to blame for the hate and mistrust with which US government s (NOT it's people) are viewed by so many, not only in the Arab world but in the wider world also.

I have to say that as a European I consider the greatest patriots in America to be people like Christine who have the courage to say that they disagree with something which the rest of the world can see quite clearly. Bush has created the Iraqi problem for absolutely no logical reason based on his reasoning at the outset of the invasion. He and his mal-administration are operating to their own agenda at the expense of the rest of humanity.

Gobsmacked??? I am so sorry Brian. Aaron and I certainly did not mean for anyone to get Gobsmacked. I hope it didn't hurt.

I think the invasion of Iraq would have been difficult to justify had they not invaded Kuwait once upon a time. Remember when the world had to go in and drive him back to Baghdad. As it was, the coalition action was justified as soon as Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire from the first time around. No WMD required.

Christine, I am sorry, you are still not correct, but you will very likely feel better in a couple years. We will probably elect John Murtha, and bail on Iraq right after that. Then Brian and his boys can get started on their Caliphate. If you have still had it with the US by then, maybe Brian will invite you to Anbar for a visit. I am curious how you like it there. Please write and let us know... if they let you.

Brian, you might be right about no radical Muslim "Terrorists" in 1802.
At that time they were known as radical Muslim "Pirates." But what difference does it make what we call them. They both used tactics of the common criminal to achieve a desired goal. Civilization can not now allow criminal behavior to be an effective means to achieve a goal, just as it could not then. And no, it is not the same thing when a state mobilizes its military to defend itself, or when a coalition comes together to enforce terms of a cease fire.

I would go so far as to allow that American Revolutionaries may qualify as guerilla fighters, but not terrorists. Big difference! I don't believe the minutemen blew up any discos in the UK.

When I open the paper these days, I do not see people attempting to throw off shackles of an oppressor. I see "terrorists" blowing up civilians, and other people who are trying to rebuild Iraq, and then get out. In fact I believe the Coalition war on Saddam is long over. The current war is Al Qaeda invading Iraq. So, if anyone wants the war to end, take it up with bin Laden. Maybe Brian M. can deliver a message.

US foreign policy to blame for world terrorism? I am gobsmacked when anyone tries to float that. What was our foreign policy that caused the radical Muslim terrorists, sorry... pirates, to snag our ships back in 1802. How come there are no radical Hungarian terrorists?

As for Brian M. being a European, I am glad.

I am too Bill, I pity Americans having to put up with the dangerous tyrant Bush's administration and more those naive enough to believe everything he says. He is not a fool, he is just the most dangerous man on earth.

Odd that the minutemen didn't blow up any discos in the 18th century. I wonder why?

I don't think you get my point Bill. To the indigenous population the insurgents are freedom fighters, to the occupying forces they are terrorists. So despite what you believe George Washington would have been considered a terrorist in his day by the British and his allies, the same way the insurgents in Iraq are now considered patriots by 6 out of 10 Iraqis (judging by the latest polls).

Muslim pirates? Plenty of Christian pirates!

Nice article. I think the problem is rooted in the fact that so many people are so easily manipulated by emotions vs logic (the Faux News strategy).

Nice and I am just as confused as you as to why no one can explain to me why they are still in power?

Liberals cannot ge past ,well, the past. I started reading your post and found it winding down that old road that starts out with "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11".
It's so old to keeping saying that no one ever said it did. It is a part of the defense of our civilization. The sides have always been polarized when it comes to war. One of our greatest presidents was assailed in the most foul ways imaginable. Abraham Lincoln was treated disgracefully by citizens of this country for defending the United States and paid with his life to save this nation. I understand most people don't have the fortitude to do what it takes,to get their hands dirty,to not cut n run and bow to fear. To keep taking you point by point is too easy,I've had a tough day at work,so lets take the easy way.
You look foolish defending the pro-abortion stance. Advocating the 'priveldge' to abort. I support the law ,myself. But I believe that it is killing a human life. What's the chance that fertilized egg will turn out to be something else ??? I see it as a necessary evil,much like the death penalty,our society hasn't evolved enough to not need either.
I see you have fallen prey to "division, twisting the facts and playing on people's ignorance and fear all while foaming at the mouth." And it wasn't Limbaugh,Hannity or the lovely,brilliantly talented Ann Coulter that did it. I speak of the internet running myth of DU (depleted uranium). Where is the main stream news on this ? the so called story has been around for over 10 yrs. You think that Dan Rather wouldn't like a story like this instead of having to rely on a nut case to try and get President Bush with a lame Air Nat.Guard story ? The CDC reported on DU, The New England Journal of Medecine cited another study. and the government has studies too saying no risks have been taken. I love the internet,but urban legend is a by-product of letting anyone have their say.
Out one side of your mouth we our spending ourselves into oblivion,then out the other side we've taken 19 billion away from veterans affairs. Wow,now I had to google that one. A typical liberal tactic is to run with the allegation and ignore the truth. after googling ,yes I found the allegation all over,but the meat of all the articles explains that the budgets have all increased,so Yes we are spending mega tons of money. You want to know what else you are wrong about ???? Bush isn't a conservative. He is an evangelical,social conservative,fiscally liberal republican. So other than protecting this country and cutting taxes,I don't support him. But NO democrat will do that which makes him the better man for the job.
Oh and I defy anyone to show us where we (the USA) tortured anyone !!!!
But you all love to throw that word around. With all the torture and murder that our civilians,no less soldiers and other civilians of the world have endured without a lick of out-cry by the left,you dare to condemn us to guilt without any proof. SAD.
If anyone could pay the least amount of attention,the debate was about interrogation methods,not torture.........Get a clue. I'll let you decide,be a guest of Islamic jihadists or be a guest of our brave marines at gitmo ? choose wisely and you might keep your head.

LB the US doesn't need to torture anyone, they do it the smart way and get other regimes that don't mind, to do it for them. That is COMMON KNOWLEDGE.

Brian M. to answer your comment....... AND ???
You contend something outside my points,do you then agree,if grudgingly ?
as for the 'torture' issue I refer you back to my point of defending this nation and those that can't stomach the dirty business of such need to let those that can. I do acknowledge the need to keep our humanity and work the checks and balances we have to maintain it. But the left has clouded the debate of this and many other issues,and it is all for one single-minded point.....to gain power and control everyone's lives.

Whatever happened to this "freedom and democracy" rubbish LB? You obviously admit that it is a myth and that America is not really interested in freedom and democracy, something much of the world has been aware of for a long time. If you are going to defend torture then you should admit that you don't care about morality, freedom or democracy.

"Freedom and Democracy" as you put it Brian M. comes with a price. You must defend it. Most of the world comes here to get what we got or,most recently, to destroy what we got. So to be Free and Democratic(though we aren't a true democracy,educated people know this). You must defeat those that want to defeat you,whether it is by suicide bomber or mass illegal invasion. This country is the greatest society ever to exist in recorded history,so whatever the cost...be it peacefully,or our enemies total destruction,so be it. That way we preserve OUR morality and freedom. Real morality not the relative morality practiced by the left.

Seems to me the ones who are the greatest threat to this democracy are sitting in the White House.

In response, the Left offered bumper-sticker-type arguments like, Bush lied and thousands died. But Bush never lied. He, like Clinton and Gore and Kerry and the U.N. and the British and French and Israeli intelligence services affirmed that Saddam's WMD were a vital threat, so why is it that all the democratic comments hate bush, but in turn do not give any factual exchange to give insight. It is to bad, because i agree, there really needs to be an open dialogue for the betterment of the country, but only if people can be open and enter without prejudices.

The truth is there is no truth, you must stop listen and watching what other people want you to here and see. Trust what you know is true and a fact. 1) Iraq did not attack the world trade center on 9-11, was a rogue group of people operating out of Afghanistan who's hate leader came from Saudi Arabia (Bin Laden) with billions of dollars of the worlds money from the purchase of oil. 2) We supplied Iraq (Saddam) with most of it's weapons back when Iran held American hostage under the Carder administration so he would attack Iran and did. 3) WMD were never found in Iraq. 4.) The Bush's fortune is in oil. 5.) We invaded Iraq---Bin Laden attacked the U.S. 6.) The fact is every country in the world that does not have nuclear weapons want them because they see the ones that have them as a threat and I wounder why when it was us who attacked Iraq without just course. The question should be for everybody in the world get rid of their nuclear weapons then any country that tries to gain them should be stopped. 7.) When you go to your Wal Mart and everything you buy is made in China or some other foreign country is why we don't have any jobs 8.) NAFTA was approved by both parties which make it easy for companies here to manufacture goods in another foreign country where they get slave labor, don't have to conform to environmental laws and bring that produce back to American without having to pay a tariff and guess who has to make up the money lost from not collecting tariffs. 9.) Oil companies own the U.S. government or I should say big business, this summer they got really rich by pushing the price of gas up over $3.00 a gallon and now it has come down just before an election---think about it. 10.) We no longer are a Republic form of government as handed down to us under the Constitution, it all went away with the patriot act, in the name of national security.

Attacking people and who they support just is not the answer and it just keeps us the common person fighting amongst ourself instead of seeing what is being forced on us. Think about this, who would spent 5 million dollars or more of their own money to get a job that only pays a little over $200,000---power and the ability to spent yours and your children's future money if we in fact have a future.

I look at it this way---we no longer have a two party system with well defined issues that matter to the common person. I will not support either one but stand for the Constitution as it was written---if we don't get back to that we will go by the way the Roman Empire did---falling from within.

Thank you Alex F., finally someone with facts of what is really happening. One thing you left out---it would stop tomorrow if one thing was brought back---the draft and the first ones to be drafted would be the sons and daughter of congress, executive branch, and supreme court with no exceptions.

Christine, I think you already know the truth, if any of this helps you good luck.

Christine;
I enjoyed your honest and candid article. It embodies the frustrations of a lot of people in this country. I invite you to read several articles that I have written, you may find a completly different angle on things. Please start with "looking for Jesus in all the wrong places". The gospel of Jesus Christ has been completely highjacked by some wicked people in the evangelical movement. The people who you see on TV invoking the name of God in vain do not represent God's people. God's people are among the silent long suffering and humble humans that keep doing everyday good works without seeking any benefits. The political machinery in the current White house has exploited the common God fearing people. If you read the Bible you will understand that we are headed to a period of time when there will be mass desception, destruction and worship of a false God.

Thanks Jai.
I do not think I gave you enough credit. I think I have stated that I have nothing against Christians and believe most are good people. The people I have run into on here though who feel the need to preach have appeared as less than authenic people to me though. I have been a bit hesitant to add you for this reason.
You have changed my mind.

Namaste, Chris

Alex F....You ask " Would we have the very same incredible record of incompetence and mismanagement to argue about, if Our present Administration had not taken power, nearly six years ago?"
That smacks of reasoning propagated to those opposed to us "Reactionaries". Firstly ,you have to assume that Liberalism really is progressive,not just their handle. Moral relativism is the essence that makes all things possible for them. Coupled with the suspension of common sense allows the 'progressives' to engage in the process of subversion. Here's an example of suspension of common sense:
"There has never been any substantive evidence that Saddam Hussein had the materials, the equipment or the personnel, after the end of the First Gulf War, to create a true weapon of mass destruction. He was constantly being monitored on the ground, by American and British Air Force photographic reconnaisance, and from outer space. But the present Administration has been relentless and reckless, as we can see above, in using any means to convince the gullible that he did."
It's simply amazing that you can get from point A,(the entire world knowing and accounting the arsenal of Iraq,or WMD) to point B (Iraq has no WMD) and just ignore the disconnect between the 2 points and just say they never existed. To me it is a symptom of what now and has always pervaded our society,the lack or courage and will to perpetuate what a small number of great men have created and bestowed upon us.
So go ahead and call for the left to run things in this country,it has been my contention that we suceed despite their efforts. But let's see who can stomach the fight being waged over here if you think over there is such a mess.

LB The entire world never knew there were WMD. It was an amzing thing. I remeber being terribly pissed off about it. This admin. kept trying to jump the inspections and claimed they ahd done everything. The Dems were terrified of speaking out for fear of being labled unpatriotic or worse a terrorist sympathiser.
Fighting in Iraq is making more terrorists.
Think how pissed Americans were and were more than ready to go exact some revenge on Afghanistan. And that was for the deaths of people "we" did not know. Now imagine your father has been arrested, jailed, tortured, never charged, never given a lawyer.... And you happen to know he is innocent. Make no mistake many, many, many of the people we are "holding" are completely innocent! Now how would you feel?
OK, let's say this country who claims it is trying to free you has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, blown up houses, killed children and grandmothers... killed serveral members of your family and tried to call them "insurgents". Now how do you feel about these "liberators".
That crap about "If we dont fight them over there, we will be fighting them over here" dont fly with me. When will you neocons stop repeating the sound bites you are being spoon fed and then think it is true. It is amazingly annoying!