““perpetual war”????? This term is being used in an interesting way … considering the difference between the 6 years of US involvement vs. more than 1000 years of the thing that continues to fight against the US. I find it interesting that this war is labeled “Bush’s war” when the US was given this war before Bush even became president.”

It is not possible for the US to have been involved in a thousand year war when we have only been in existence for 230yrs. The Enlightenment Period, which spawned the ideas that made the US possible, have only been around for perhaps another 2-300 yrs before that (if you include the Age of Reason & the Renaissance as necessary precursors to the Enlightenment, which I do). The Roman Catholic church waged war on the Muslims long before that, but if you are trying to conflate US interests with some religious impetus stemming from a time when ‘church’ was inextricably linked with ‘state’, then you are ignoring the fundamental reason why people emigrated from the Old World to the New back then in the first place – to get AWAY from such confluences. American government evolved from, and was later officially founded on, the very ideas of religious freedom and separation of church & state.

In any event, if the US could fight a war for independence in 8yrs, a Civil War & two World Wars in less than 4, and all but one of our various lesser wars & police actions in time frames ranging from a few months to less than 3yrs, than for the situation in Iraq to be dragging on for more than a decade (as has been stated as probable BY THE ADMINISTRATION) puts in league with only one war in our history – Vietnam. Our only loss so far. That’s not a coincidence.

After a certain period of a few years, if a country is still fighting a foe (as opposed to for it’s own freedom), especially if it’s a war of occupation, they have either essentially lost to that foe and haven’t admitted it (think Brits in Northern Ireland), or they are being bled dry in the effort and, again, not admitting it (think Brits not being able to hold their empire together).

As for the idea of “perpetual war” itself, this is a term Bush/Cheney and their supporters coined themselves for this situation; alternatively as “Long War” and “Generational War”. If you want to condemn anyone for even considering the concept, it is them.

“… thinking about this in terms of hatred towards Bush makes no sense. The only aspect of all this that has anything to do with Bush is that he seems to be the only one that cares enough to fight back (whatever his real motivation).”

Fight back against who? If you believe his own narrative, and combine it with facts as we know them, he destroyed a country (Iraq) in search of an enemy (al Queida) that was never actually there. Then he decided to stay b/c said enemy (al Queida) eventually took advantage of the chaos he created and began operating in said country. However, 50% of our goal now is to also hold said country together, again b/c Bush’s own actions precipitated it being blown apart in the first place. Bush says this is happening b/c of al Queida too, but they are responsible for maybe 5-7% of all the attacks going on there. The rest is due to elements in Iraq that can’t get along with each other AND hate our occupation.

So again, who are we fighting in Iraq – everybody? Why are we fighting – to accomplish something that only the Iraqis themselves can do (hold their country together)? If al Queida is our main enemy, shouldn’t we be fighting hardest where they are strongest – in the Pak/Afghan boarder area? It’s important to understand these things for what they are, b/c we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars for a mission that is fundamentally impossible for us to conclude positively.

“I would like someone to explain in clear language how Husein could have used WMD on his own people and at the same time not have any of it.”

This one is easy – and has been common knowledge for years now, so it amazes me that you could still be ignorant of it; the UN weapons inspections of the 1990s worked. The WMDs that he had were removed then, and due to the international sanctions were never replenished after that. If you need proof, consider that Hussien himself never used another chemical or biological weapon after the Gulf War, despite having to put down a major rebellion, and a few minor ones.

WMDs were not why we went into Iraq.

“I would also like someone to explain why if it was all about the Bush family against Husein…why the US is still in Iraq?”

I don’t think it was this either – at least not in the emotional sense. Bush jr resents his father; to the extent that he brought Saddam’s trying to kill him up as a motivating factor, it was purely for public consumption. Perhaps to humanize Bush jr, or to further appeal to the emotions of the American public (ala 9/11) and short circuit reason on the issue. Either way, it was never about that in any personal sense.

“If it’s for the oil, the[n] how could it be about Husein? … I think it’s a valid point to ask where all that promised oil is? Isn’t this war said to be for oil?”

This gets closer to the crux of it, but you still are missing the bigger picture. I don’t say that as a criticism, b/c even those who oppose the war really don’t understand why it’s so insidious. The Iraq invasion WAS about Hussein, and it WAS b/c of what he had been doing with his oil through the 1990s, and what he was about to do going forward in 2001.

Saddam was selling oil on the blackmarket almost immediately after sanctions were imposed on him in the early 90s. At first it was a trickle, but when the methods were established & the money started rolling in (and bribes were being paid) the trickle became a torrent. This effectively drove the price of oil down to levels the industry did not like. Do you remember how the price of gas dipped to historic lows in the 90s? It was b/c Iraq’s cheaper blackmarket oil undercut the ‘official price’. The Oil for Food program was an effort to get some control over the situation (the more Iraqi oil that could be sold through official channels, the less it could undercut official prices), and while not successful as the humanitarian program it was sold as, you will find (Google it) that the price of oil & gasoline started to rise, slightly, not too long after it came into effect. But if you consider that regular gas in some parts of the US was less than a buck a gallon by 1999, you can see that this must have been driving the oil companies batshit crazy.

That alone still wasn’t enough of a reason to invade though. The kicker came when Saddam announced he was going to sell all his oil in Euros ONLY in 2000-01, not the Dollar. This is when he signed his own death warrant. The US trade deficit going back to the 80s has meant the dollar should have been collapsing long ago. Instead it has been the strongest currency in the world until recently. The reason is b/c the entire world bought & sold oil with dollars, essentially giving it value it otherwise would not have, and allowing massive trade deficits to occur without a concurrent loss of currency value. For as long as the world demanded oil, the demand (and hence value) of dollars would be assured. Yet the minute the dollar loses it’s monopoly position vis a vis the oil market, it’s like letting air out of a balloon – as the Euro begins siphoning off ‘business’ from the dollar, the dollar’s value deflates by the same amount.

Iraq has something like 15-20% of the world’s oil reserves. If Saddam began pumping all that out (which he wasn’t allowed to up to that point) AND began selling it in Euros, the value of the dollar would have collapsed AT LEAST 15-20% overnight, and probably more since market psychology comes into play here too. THAT is why we invaded Iraq – to protect the value of the dollar (which wouldn’t have been overvalued in the first place had we had a more rational, balanced economy that actually produced things).

BTW – that is also why we tried to get rid of Chavez. He stated his intent to move a portion of his oil sales to Euros, and within a year he was almost deposed by a Venezuelan oil industry-backed coup (complete with white CIA personal jets to take him away, ala Aristide in Haiti). We didn’t invade outright because Venezuela is only a mid level oil producer, and some is till being sold in dollars.

Iran on the other hand produces much more oil, and is going almost exclusively to the Euro (if they haven’t already). Who are we threatening more and more everyday? Iran. See the pattern?

And since these countries have increasingly sold oil in Euros, what has happened to the dollar? It has declined, more or less consistently, going back to 2001. It’s not a coincidence.

Invading Iraq was always about oil, just not in the way that people think. All this talk of attacking Iran is completely about oil too – from the standpoint of the value of the dollar, it’s better to destroy these countries than to allow them to pump a drop and sell it in Euros. WMDs in both cases are just to get some segment of the public to support that sort of action, and all the death and destruction it entails, b/c if the real reason were known (as well as the very creaky foundations our economy is really built on), there would be absolutely no support for it whatsoever.

“I think that too many people get so caught up in the “hate Bush” emotionalism and forget about the larger picture. 3700 dead soldiers is pretty light for a six year war … I want someone to explain who … is fighting for Iraq? I would submit that anyone in Iraq fighting for Iraq would be more likely to side with the US.”

This ignores so much geopolitical history as to be ridiculous. The US is blamed by the average Iraqi for supporting Saddam when he was gassing his people in the 80s (and they are right). The US is blamed by the average Iraqi for leaving Saddam in power in the 90s and allowing him to put down every effort they made to oust him on their own after the Gulf War (and they are right on that too). And the US is blamed for invading their country in the 2000s, destroying it, and having no workable plan in place of security & reconstruction thereafter (and they are right yet again). Three decades, three eras of pain for the Iraqi people, and three times when the US had a either a guiding or direct hand in all of it.

And you expect them to reflexively fight with us now?!

The Iraqis who are fighting for liberation (and probably of their own region/religion/ethnicity, NOT for a greater Iraq that no longer exists), if they were using their brains at all, would almost have to see the US as their main enemy. You have obviously have not thought this part through at all.

I’ve contributed to this discussion about all that I can. I’m done.

Never. I renounce Dumbya in all his pomp. It is he who has betrayed America, and has no moral imperative to call himself “president”.

As to your vote: For shame. You too betrayed America.

Gee never saw you as the quitter type. You renouncing your citizenship? I don’t deny voting for him once but that was more a vote against the lame brain running against him than anything.Proust!

Not mine, anymore than Hitler was der Führer of non-Nazi Germans and Jews. You voted for Dumbya. Now sleep in your bed. That motherfucker is a stain on America.

Our president unless you moved lately.Skoal

well as usual your royal yellowness you declare victory by changing the topic. I haven’t said the war was just or right I just said the claims by the anti ketchup crowd about this all being about evil cheney and going to get the oil are the arguments of conspiracy whackos and nut jobs and then you made my case for me……….sheesh and yes the wine is fine thank you.

So. You think the Iraq war has been a success?

2 BILLION of our tax dollars per week multiplied by forever.

Damn, this war better be worth it.

>>some evil plan of Cheney or W for oil profits is all this is about

No, an evil plan of Cheny. Not W. He’s far too stupid to have a plan. He just does what President Cheney/ Bush tells him to, moving his Charley McCarthy lips to the gentle caress of Edgar Bergen’s hands.

Face it, KVolk. Dumbya’s trophy war was a clusterfuck, and if President Cheney doesn’t get a few billion in oil out of the debacle, he’s going to be PISSED!!

Well Mr french I must say you prove my point can you even begin to know what you are talking about? Your like a fat drunk in GMC Gremlin all over the road and unable to stop the car from flippin because you over correct everytime setting up the accident from the time you walked up to the car. You know the only point that I tried to explain to you in simple terms, in hope that would pentrate the concrete you call a skull was that the delusion that some evil plan of Cheney or W for oil profits is all this is about is about as accurate as your attempt to make a coherent arguement about anything. I think it is time for you to stick your head back into the toliet and call it a night.

It has nothing to do with Bush. America’s morality was seriously going down hill long before his presedency. “Atlantis” is used as an example….as if Bush could have had anything to do with that. Logic and reason means nothing and hatred of Bush is the only thing that counts. This doen’t make sense.

Well, Dumbya’s got the Mission almost Accomplished. Another four years, and America would have gone the way of Atlantis.