"War on Terrorism" eh? Is that like "World War II" or "The Civil War" or the "Russo-Japanese War"? I didn't know we were quoting military engagements now. Do you mean to say there is no war on terrorism?

The "war on terror" is not the Iraq War. It's a "war" in the same sense as the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, etc. These aren't military engagements. It's all doublespeak. And the issue is about the "war" (our new policies) and its effect on "terror" (the United States academic system).

But you forget, these are not new policies. These were policies begun by Bush 1/UN and continued by Clinton. The Iraq war is merely a battle in a larger war. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Anyone who thinks Saddam would not have jumped at a chance at Al-Quida resources or vice versa is kidding themselves.

If a man punches me in the face I do not turn my cheek, I am not Jesus or Buddha, I am a human being. I punch him back until he stops punching me. The first thing I must stop is his fist, or if you prefer his ability to manufacture harm. Iraq, under saddam, had incredible resources to punch us (he also had 13 years to hide those resources) . How can we not be better without him?

Also, How is it that the war in the Balkans was just but not the war in Iraq? Both freed large numbers of people from oppressive governments. Rwanda had a war around the same time as the Balkan conflict (2 million dead in three months) and the Clinton administration didn't lift a finger. Either the Lib's are racist or blinded by hatred of conservatives. I don't 'love' liberals, but I recognize their inherent right to be wrong. So keep on dreaming baby.

JT, this post was SPECIFICALLY about new policies, policies that are keeping foreign brains out and driving domestic brains out as well. So, no, I don't forget.

But if you need to talk about somehow justifying the Iraqi invasion, you're not convincing me with rhetoric about these "incredible resources" that Saddamn, as it turns out, did not possess. Further, trying to link Saddam with the mystery potential of somehow in some way linking up with Al Qaeda.. is just grasping for straws. That "enemy of an enemy" connection turned out to be as vacuous as the WMD. And calling anyone a racist on the basis of being selective about which countries to move troops to... without addressing the hypocrisy of hmm.. NORTH KOREA? A country that is trying their hardest to CONVINCE the world they have WMD. I guess those gooks don't deserve freedom from oppressive governments. As if anybody believes that's what the war was really about.