And you call me small minded

close-minded would be much more accurate, but one leads to the other.

And you call me small minded close-minded would be much more accurate, but one leads to the other.

I'll thank you to keep your comments about me to yourself. The conversation did not include you. I also noticed that you did nothing more than name calling without being able to refute what I posted. After reading what I posted tell me again how Iraq was not a threat to the US.

After reading what I posted

if i wanted to read worldweeklynewsdotnet, i'd go there instead of here.

After reading what I posted if i wanted to read worldweeklynewsdotnet, i'd go there instead of here.

Well if you don't want to read it then stay out of conversations that have nothing to do with you.

Well if you don't want to read it then stay out of conversations that have nothing to do with you.

actually i came here to read the colonel's take on wolfowitz. i didnt realize i hadda ask your permission to do that or to comment on the discussion.

drmiler

All that you inculded does not show a danger to the United States. the oil for food scandal did not provide Saddam with an offensive military force or weapons of mass distruction. The payments you described to terrorists relate to Israel not the United States.

You need to read the article by Professor Record of the Army War College who is one hell of a lot more knowledgeable than you will ever be as to what constitutes a danger to the United States. It is clear that the rogue states of the world do not attack major powers. If they didn't they would cease to exist and Saddam Hussein understood that clearly. You don't understand the difference between them being evil and posing a danger to the United States.

I believe he should have been removed but not by the United States military. To use our military force in a preemptive fashion requires there be a direct and imminent danger to the United States. We are not a world law enforcement agency nor the enforcement agency the United Nations. The Real danger is from the terrorist cells like Al Qaeda who have demonstrated they will attack the United States. There is no danger from any Rogue states. When we sent a Christian Army into a Muslim country we created more new enemies from that action then reducing the potential threat from a person like Saddam Hussein. We made a major error and hopefully we will not repeat it in the future. What is the source of the lack of understanding you document in your Blogs?

You have learned well from Bush. What the troops a coming back from Iraq said about their mission and the fact that we were lied to about the cost of the war and how our troops would be received has nothing to do with each other. I too am proud of the way our military have accomplished their mission. The thing is the mission they were given was the wrong mission. It was not a mistake of our civilian leadership at the White House and the Pentagon.

And you have learned well from Michael Moore.

Nobody was lied to about the cost of war. Nobody could correctly estimate the cost of an operation like this.

The troops don't feel as though they were lied to because they weren't. You keep whining about how the troops were received, like I said, the troops are still being thanked today for what they did. Why don't you see those stories in the media? Why don't you see the stories of the troops helping the Iraqi people?

When we sent a Christian Army into a Muslim country we created more new enemies from that action then reducing the potential threat from a person like Saddam Hussein. We made a major error and hopefully we will not repeat it in the future. What is the source of the lack of understanding you document in your Blogs?

And we also created a wave of democracy in the Middle East that will eventually solve most of the problems in the world. People like you would rather leave everything the same just as long as we don't "offend" anybody.

Well if you don't want to read it then stay out of conversations that have nothing to do with you. actually i came here to read the colonel's take on wolfowitz. i didnt realize i hadda ask your permission to do that or to comment on the discussion.

You *don't* need my permission. However you did NOT comment on the discussion. You engaged in name calling and left it at that.

close-minded would be much more accurate, but one leads to the other.

Now why don't you explain how the quoted passage comments on a discussion?

I am not sure what the election in Iraq will produce. the outcome will not be known until we know what kind of governments result from this elections. For example, if Hezbollah is elected as the major force in Lebanon it may not be such a great outcome. If the government that emerges in Iraq is in anti- American and allows terrorist organizations to operate within their country it will not be a great outcome. Adolf Hitler was elected by the democratic process in 1932 as chancellor of Germany. I would hope no one with way point to that a as a positive outcome of a democratic election.

Until we change our policies that offend the radical Muslim elements we will not solve the issue of terrorism throughout the world. Like it or not there are millions of Muslims who do not consider people like Osama bin Laden as a terrorist but rather as a hero. You and I can certainly agree that he is in fact a terrorist but that does not change the way millions of Muslims consider him and they are the ones that we must deal with to solve the trerrorist problem in this world. We have not helped ourselves by taking our army into Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein. Had he been removed by either the Iraqi people or by other Muslim elements, it would have been a positive change. To have the United States preemptively attack a Muslim country even to remove a dictator like Saddam Hussein was not a good move. As many or more Iraqis have died since the start of the current Iraq war then were killed or least reported to have been killed by Saddam Hussein. We do not know what type of government will be in Iraq and before we beat the drums of victory (Mission Accomplished) we better wait and see the outcome of this election.

Until we change our policies that offend the radical Muslim elements we will not solve the issue of terrorism throughout the world. Like it or not there are millions of Muslims who do not consider people like Osama bin Laden as a terrorist but rather as a hero.

Ah yes, the basis for liberal thought. Don't "offend" the terrorists.

It doesn't take much to offend muslims in this world. That is part of the problem. They use Israel and the U.S. for a scapegoat to cover their own problems.

We have not helped ourselves by taking our army into Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein.

Oh really.

WASHINGTON, March 4 /PRNewswire/ -- In the first substantial shift of public opinion in the Muslim world since the beginning of the United States' global war on terrorism, more people in the world's largest Muslim country now favor American efforts against terrorism than oppose them. This is just one of many dramatic findings of a new nationwide poll in Indonesia released today. "In a stunning turnaround of public opinion, support for Bin Laden and terrorism in the world's most populous Muslim nation has dropped significantly, while favorable views of the United States have increased," said Kenneth Ballen, President of Terror Free Tomorrow, which commissioned the poll. "The poll shows that the reason for this positive change is the American response to the tsunami," Ballen added.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050304/dcf001_1.html

I do not know what part of the total Muslim population support us but I believe there are millions that hate us. The Iraq people look at us not as friends but required to pervent a total break down of authority. I hope we help ourselves in the middle-east conflict be making sure that Israel does not build that wall beyond their borders and removes their military from the occupied lands. At the same time we must encourage the Muslim countries to make sure that that Hamas and the other terrorist groups keep their pledge not to attack Israelis. In the past we have turned our head when Israel builds settlements that were clearly illegal and conducted operations that killed innocent civilians. We must be viewed as evenhanded which means that we require the Palestinians to stop attacking Israel and requiring Israel to withdraw its military into Israel and abandoned its illegal settlements. They can not be allowed to construct their wall into Palestinian areas.

I do not know what part of the total Muslim population support us but I believe there are millions that hate us

You have no facts or figures to back this up. All you have is your "beliefs". In any case you don't care to hear what people say about this if it doesn't toe your line.

I do not know what part of the total Muslim population support us but I believe there are millions that hate us.

Possibly, but that is the fault of their religion and culture.

In the past we have turned our head when Israel builds settlements that were clearly illegal and conducted operations that killed innocent civilians. We must be viewed as evenhanded which means that we require the Palestinians to stop attacking Israel and requiring Israel to withdraw its military into Israel and abandoned its illegal settlements. They can not be allowed to construct their wall into Palestinian areas

The palestinians are a whole separate issue, but since you brought it up we can discuss it.

Sure the U.S. has favored Israel, and rightly so. Arafat was one of the biggest terrorists in the world, but he was loved by the U.N. and the euros, surprising isn't it? I find it amazing how much they seem to have accomplished since he is gone.

The palestinians biggest problem is not Israel or the U.S. It's the rest of the "Arab world" that has exploited the palestinians that caused the most problems. The favortism the U.S. shows Israel is nothing compared to the hate that the arab world exploits out of the situation.

However you did NOT comment on the discussion. You engaged in name calling and left it at that

oh. i thought you were the one who was proclaiming col gene incorrect by expressing surprise anyone might assess your mind as being smaller than his--thus implying his is smaller than yours. rather than calling names, i was supporting your contention by offering my opinion that size wasnt the problem. i was also most certainly commenting on the discussion, specifically your part in diminishing it by responding to col gene's statements --which, if nothing else, express his own opinions in his own words and sentences,nearly all of which are originated and authored by him--as you do everywhere: cutting and pasting not facts or anything close to them, but halfbaked propaganda from whatever partisan spinsite you happen to favor at that moment.

drmiler

Better read, "Imperial Hubris" by Anonymous (Michael Scheuer) before you show your total lack of knowledge. This CIA dept head has 22 years dealing with the Terrorist issue in the Muslim world.

Island Dog

No, the middle-east issue is just another part of the very same issue- How the Muslims view the U S. You too need to read Michael Scheuer's book! You should also read the work of Professor Record of the Army War College about the diffference between terrorists and Rogue states. It is clear you do not understand the diff