No shit. Kind of obvious if you ask me - which you didn't. But still...everyone knew something was up.

big suprise there. we have a gov't that has made historical obliterations of our freedoms through wars on terrorism and drugs,all the while proclaiming Jesus and the spread of democracy. unfortunately my brethren blindly follow and obey the fascist satanists leading us down the path to eventual slavery. if gw and his cohorts are Christ like, i'm a crowned saint with powers to part water and raise the dead.

Yeah the whole thing was bull!!! Christians used to be bloody war mongerers, remember the crusades? Guess they left that one out the bible!!! Haha!! Bush is just a fuckin hick, the man cant read or write properly yet he can command an army, this is worrying. But fact of life was that they absolutly no reason or evidence to go in there and stir shit up, i'm sure oil played a part in there somewhere.

If anybody is at all, in the least suprised by this revelation in any way, please stand up now and identify yourself.

Joe Cocomo

I'm sure the US already has preliminary plans for a lot of scenarios, such as invading North Korea or defending Taiwan from China, among other things. But although invading Iraq and Afganistan was a good thing, the US and UK governments should have spent more time planning strategies and training troops for the urban warfare that is seen today.

The coalition troops should also not prioritize "winning the hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people to getting the damn job done. After 30 years of Saddams rule you typically would have a broken mind and a hardened heart. By giving people that much "freedom" in such a short span, without proper law enforcement, you will get opportunists who vie for power in such chaos and anarchy and are the people you see today setting of carbombs and organizing suicide bombers in attempts to disrupt the coalitions struggle for stability in Iraq.

However, since the war has already started, it will take years before there is some form of stability in Iraq, and mistakes learned in this invasion should hopefully not be repeated when the US faces its other adversaries in the 21st Century.

I submit to you the following:

(1) While the US has many war-plans for many different scenarios which will probably never come true, the allegations are that the governments of George Bush and Tony Blair agreed in secret to invade Iraq for unknown reasons as early as July 2002, knew at that time Iraq was probably not developing WMD's, and agreed to create a propaganda reason for invading the country. This is a far cry from having a war plan in a filing cabinet buried somewhere deep within the Pentagon.

(2) Why do you think that "'winning the hearts and minds' of the Iraqi people" is not part of "getting the damn job done," and thus should not be a priority? (Normally I would use this space with an attempt to crush your puny opinion with the great weight of many, many Facts™, but in so far as I actually want to hear why you think this I will refrain.)

(3) What makes you think the war in Iraq is a Good Thing™? It's a bit early for that pronouncement, isn't it?

Joe Cocomo

I submit to you the following:

(1) While the US has many war-plans for many different scenarios which will probably never come true, the allegations are that the governments of George Bush and Tony Blair agreed in secret to invade Iraq for unknown reasons as early as July 2002, knew at that time Iraq was probably not developing WMD's, and agreed to create a propaganda reason for invading the country. This is a far cry from having a war plan in a filing cabinet buried somewhere deep within the Pentagon.

(2) Why do you think that "'winning the hearts and minds' of the Iraqi people" is not part of "getting the damn job done," and thus should not be a priority? (Normally I would use this space with an attempt to crush your puny opinion with the great weight of many, many Facts™, but in so far as I actually want to hear why you think this I will refrain.)

(3) What makes you think the war in Iraq is a Good Thing™? It's a bit early for that pronouncement, isn't it?

Joe Cocomo

Allow me to reply to what you said without being condescending:

1) The WMD pretext for going to war with Iraq was necessary to garner support from the public, still emotionally scarred and jittery after the September 11th attacks, and probably to pacify the international community from retaliating against the US, had they used a more realistic reason for the invasion. These more realistic reasons could have been ensuring a long term oil supply from what one would hope would be a friendly country after the war. Then again, this could have been another experiment with installing a democracy in a dictatorship country. Maybe no one will truly ever know the "real" reason for invading Iraq, but the war has already started and I doubt there will be in any prosecution of anyone linked to instigating the war.

2) Winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people is needed but one of the main purported reasons to going to war with Iraq was to give the Middle East a taste of democracy with hopes that democracy installed in Iraq would slowly spread to the other autocractic nations in this region. While this may or may not happen, you'd have to wait for a whole new generation of Iraqi's to emerge, born free from Saddam Hussein's brutal rule, to truly be pro-US, or well, maybe less anti-US.
During the first Gulf War, some Iraqi's prematurely celebrated what they thought would be Saddam Hussein's fall from power; this never happened and those who openly celebrated were severly punished; mass graves are still being found around Iraq of those who dared to express their dislike of Saddam. And of course this leads to a very deep resentment of the US, who they feel abandoned them. Of course the US can try to make amends but there will always be bitterness, which is why winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people is not what the US came to Iraq to do. They apparently came to install a democracy and the sooner they get that done, the sooner they can leave, learn from their mistakes and prepare themselves for wherever else there is a need for the US military all while supporting the new government from a distance and letting them deal with Iraqi dissent.

3) Regardless of the pretext for going to war with Iraq, there have been a lot of side-effects of this invasion. Iraq was ruled by a brutal murderer who used the corrupt Oil-For-Food program to build lavish palaces while the Iraqi people, sitting on such a large oil reserve, were without proper food, medical care and even proper shelter. Saddam Hussein is gone now and that has also scared a lot of other Middle Eastern countries into instituting token democratic reforms, in hopes that they can hold of the US' plans to demoractize the whole Middle East for awhile longer.
The Middle East is a dump. The glitzy ad campaigns shown in the West do not show the Middle East for what it really is: an area ruled by dictators, where they censor the media and control information into the country. The show they put on for tourists tend to decieve most, but for someone who's lived here for close to 20 years (I was born here), I can tell you that its just a very well funded PR campaign that hides the brutality that goes on behind the scenes. The invasion of Iraq is an experiment in democracy that may or may not work, but that doesn't mean the US shouldn't try. That said, I think that indifference to suffering is immoral and disgusting and although the US might not have invaded had it not being looking out for its best interests, this war should hopefully ensure that future generations won't have to deal with the terrorist breeding ground that is the Middle East.

Nice come back.
Fact, Blair and Bush ha dno reason to go into Iraqi, just ask Hutchkin, he was the guy responcible for finding out if Iraqi had the capabilities to make nukes, he went over found no such evidence and reported it, did anyone pay attention to his report? FUCK NO!! The media and America had already decided they were going in and that as it, Britain being Americas little bitch just tagged along. It was a fuckin travesty! A lot of people died over nothing, other than the spreading of 'BUSHES' democracy.

(1) It seems to me the jist of what you're saying is that it's OK for the elected leaders of democratic societies to lie in the most bald-faced manner to the people who elected them and to the international community if the ends justify the means. I am sorry, but if you believe that then we have a basic philosophical diffirence about the meaning and foundation of American Democracy and the American Republic. The United States Government is founded on "we the people." No civil officer has the right to lie to us, the foundation of the state, in such a weighty matter of statecraft.

(2) Democracy is grounded in the consent of the governed. If the majority of Iraqis' "hearts and minds" are not won to democracy in some form, how will a democratic government, "of the people" survive? The United States has attempted in a couple of places over the last century to knock over the indigenous oppressor of whatever stripe and install a democratically elected government. There is a very, very strong correlation (I would guess 100%, but I haven't actually done a formal study) between the support of the populace and the success of the campaign. I have read statistics from credible sources stating that, outside of the Sunni minority, approximately 70% of Iraqis support democratic reforms, and thus I tend to think that most of those "hearts and minds" are already won for democracy, but I think if you believe that this is an insignificant element of the war, seperate and subordinate to "the damn job" you have failed to take the lessons of history.

(3) According to the international think tank Freedom House ( [link] ) Saddam Hussein's Iraq was one of the 10 least free countries on Earth. Every human rights group that examined it found that it was a brutal regime which oppressed its people and practiced torture regularly. I, along with most intelligent Americans, am well aware of this fact, and the fact that it is still true throughout the rest of the Middle East, be it in our erstwhile "ally," Saudi Arabia, your native U.A.E, or any other Arab state. (Incidentally the "glitzy ad campaigns" you're referring to aren't very glitzy or convincing, and they haven't achieved much penetration in America's ad-overloaded society anyway. The House of Saud et. Al may get an "A" for effort, but they're not fooling anybody who doesn't want to be fooled.) Unlike you I am not and never have been a resident of the Middle East, but I have done volunteer work in international human rights for some years now and I have no illusions about the state of things. Furthermore, indiffirence to suffering is immoral and disgusting, and U.S. foregin policy all too often ignores it in favor of domestic expedience, and we are, in part, seeing the fruits of that indiffirence in the rise of international terrorism.

If the United States can solve the problems of an oppressed middle east by sacrificing the lives of a few thousand of our sons and the limbs of a thousands more (as as been the case so far), then it is well worth the bargin. If a US war in Iraq would make al-Qasimi, al-Nuhayyan stop flogging/stoning to death/otherwise torturing people, hold general elections, pack up their government and leave the UAE to democracy, or make a similar thing happen in any other country I would gladly go back into the Army and make any sacrifice necessary. But let's face it; it's just not that simple. There's still all those Wahhabis and takfiri of every stripe who are just plain-old anti-democratic to deal with. A war may be the only solution to this problem, but it may not. American economic pressure and diplomatic pressure has never been fully applied to anything other than ensuring a constant flow of oil and the state security of our two notable client states in the area. While such pressure never would have toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein it may well be capable of forcing democratic reforms in nations we have closer ties to.

That said, if we win in Iraq, and the democratic state which is now in its infancy survives, the war may very well be a "Good Thing." If we lose, and the Iraqis can't maintain their democratic state under the weight of the anti-democratic insurrection, wouldn't you agree that the war will have been a "Bad Thing?" The totalitarian regime that the insurgents seem to envision will likely be just as brutal as Saddam Hussein's was, right? If that happens, it will just have been a waste of lives, political capital, and (Now that we've brought you Abu Ghraib) America's honor. Thus, I still hold that it is a bit early to pronounce the war a Good Thing™.

Furthermore, the wider geopolitical implications of the Iraq war have to be taken into account. If I lived in Dubai, I probably wouldn't think of these as very important compared to having democracy in the Middle East, but the fact is they might be, and cannot be ignored. Some of the farthest reaching implications are thus:

(A) The Iraq War has completed the fracture of the Western Alliance in all but name. This fracture has been brewing for quite some time, arguably since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, however the invasion of Iraq over the objections of continental Europe, especially the France, has driven a rift between the historical members of the Western Alliance which may never be healed. The Western Alliance has kept the world safe since the first world war, and this comes at a time when China is coming into ascendancy and is thus looming on the horizon as a potentially dangerous anti-democratic, anti-liberal* force on the geopolitcal stage. Given the rising economic and military power of China (Its economy is projected to outstrip the US's as the largest in the world) the United States may well be unable to deal with this threat alone. Middle-eastern terrorists, while certainly very dangerous, are not a threat on par with another global cold war.

(B) The political capital of the United States abroad has in a large measure been exhausted. This means that when the United States attempts to use diplomatic means to stop, say, the oppression of Muslims in Chechnya or stop the sale of arms by France to the Iranian regime, it doesn't really work at all. Furthermore, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal has sullied the honor of the United States in the blackest way possible.

(C) The economic cost of the war in Iraq ($170,000,000,000) means that all the other stuff the U.S. does for the world will suffer. Remember that $30,000,000,000 we wanted to spend in Africa to fight AIDS? It's never going to get there. Iraq is a country which was oppressed by a brutal dictator. Africa's a continent that's being wiped out by a disease that will be a scourge of our time. Hussein was contained. AIDS isn't. That's just one big one; there's other stuff, too. It's always been hard to get money out of USAID (We're a very stingy country when it comes to handing out our tax dollars, I don't know why), but I bet that a big chunk of that $350,000,000 we pledged to the victims of the Tsunami never materializes. All of this is in part a result of the Iraq war.

I could go on.

In the end, I'm not saying that the war in Iraq is neccesarily a bad thing. I'm just saying it's too early to say it's a good thing, in the blanket sense.

Joe Cocomo



* "Liberal" is to be understood in the classical sense of being in favor of human and political rights for its citizenry, not the more recent American sense of being aligned with the Democratic party.

To say that the US/UK "had no reason" to go into Iraq is untenable; no one acts without motivation. The questions are thus:

(1) Were the reasons accurately represented to the respective constituents of George Bush and Tony Blair?

(2) Were the reasons significant enough to justify the war?

(3) Were the reasons legal grounds for going to war?

If the answers to any of the preceding questions are "no," then yes, it is "a fuckin travesty." That said, I assure you; the spread of democracy over tyranny is not nothing, even if the circumstances under which it comes about are unfortunate.

Joe Cocomo

christians aren't war mongerers. bush may be, the catholics of the crusades and the american civil war may have been but, not christians as a whole. christians only attack in self defense....and that may include attacking first in some cases. that being said many have come in Christ's name claiming good. only to be inclined towards self serving works. that's bush and ashcroft and the whole bunch with him. take the bible and match it to bush and you will see he's a liar riding Christianity as a vehicle for the millions of gullible people that are christians. christianity has it's share of ignorant people. even though their eyes should be open. your eyes are not open to blanket all christians as bush. bush is a babe in Christ and knows not the scriptures. that's why he's so dangerous. many true Christians will follow him without rightly dividing his works. salvation through Christ is the only way to open eyes. you deny christ, you are blind and ignorant as a 3 year old. you follow anyone that claims to be a christian,you are ditto. you accuse all that claim christ, you are of your father the devil and blind to the love of God through Christ. i am anti bush but, i am pro christ. you are just a blanketeer. with no ability to divide good and evil from it's unnumbered forms. give your life to jesus and your eyes will be opened and you won't fall for all this crap. most knowledgable christians won't even bother to come into these sites and debate or witness to you because it's silly and ignorant to even argue this stuff. i have mercy on you and tell you the truth. you will lash out at me if you are evil. you will humbly hang your head in acknowledgement of the truth if you are even remotely good at heart. take this effort you put into accusing and use it to learn christ and you're in for a suprise.

you are just a blanketeer. with no ability to divide good and evil from it's unnumbered forms.

In so far as you are accusing vin of being unable to "divide good and evil," am I to understand that you claim this power yourself? It seems to me that makes you a judge.

you will humbly hang your head in acknowledgement of the truth if you are even remotely good at heart.

So you claim you know what is in mens' hearts? It is written, "Only God is good."


My brother, perhaps you should re-read the scriptures and pray for understanding before you try to remove the mote from another's eye. Do not forget that many of the scriptures were written by a man who "accused all who claimed Christ" until God intervened. Remember the parable of the barren fig tree: "A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came looking for fruit but found none. He said to his vinedresser, 'For three years now I have been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and finding none. Cut it down: why should it be taking up the ground?' 'Sir,' the man replied, ' leave it one more year and give me time to dig round it and fertilize it: it may bear fruit next year; if not, then you can cut it down." Even if we are redeemed, we have all been barren fig trees at some point or another, and Christ has spoken for us, not allowing us to be cut down before he can fertilize our soil and help us to bear fruits. Unless you are the vinedresser, you shouldn't go around claiming to know which trees will bear fruit and which won't. What is in another man's heart is known to God alone.

God with God,
Joe Cocomo

1) No need to be sorry, and although any government should not have the right to lie to their people and get away with it, it happens all the time. I am not condoning nor condemning what the US might or might not have lied about but rather dealing with what happens. A governement can always justify its actions by taking a "father knows best" attitude with its populace and thus hiding/exxagerating/playing down crucial information.

2) It is not completely up to the US coalition to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people - it is up to the Iraqi Government. Iraqi's are overwhelmingly willing to give democracy a try and the government they vote in should reflect the will of the people. To have a competant democracy, the Iraqi's should have faith in whatever government they vote in is not a just a puppet of the US but a government which has complete sovereignty over the country. Of course it is important that the US help out the Iraqis but, as I said above, it is not their first and foremost objective, which was to free Iraq from a dictatorship and open it up for democractic elections. The Interim Government's main priority is to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis and show them they they are a real government.

3) From what I know from living here, most arabs will never trust the US as long as they support Israel and there is a conflict between Israel and Palestine and until it is resolved, the US can never have the complete cooperation of the governments to reign in terrorist cells.

If you've read my previous comments on the Iraq War and the War on Terror, I have mentioned that the War in Iraq is a "good thing" in that it is a catalyst for change. That change can be for the better or for the worse but that shouldn't stop people from making some sort of difference, rather than leaving Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter as it once was. And yes it will cost a lot of money, but for the potential long-term benefits of a democratic Iraq/Middle East, I think the risk is worth it.

those that call it judgement are those that were cut by the two edged sword[word of God]. it cut going in and it cut coming out. that makes you blind to the truth with a bible in your hand. it will be worse for you in those days than those that never knew the truth. yes i am fully aware of what is good and evil. this ability is given to all that are able to rightly divide the word. paul recieved it and it were as if scales had fallen from his eyes. when he came to the knowledge of christ he was immediately blinded until he received the holy ghost. he stopped acusing at that point....and you bear no fruit if you don't fertilize. you said that yourself and didn't even know it. i don't know what's in anyone's heart but, the word says it will come out of the mouth. in this case it was printed for all the world to see. that's a confession friend. so you can't say i judged when they judged themselves by denying the scripture with their own words. spend more time spreading the word than trying to stop it. that makes you a demon, not a brother.....and leaves your vine very dead, not barren. therefore God has no need to cut it down

(1) In a democracy, the citizenry are sovereign. Thus, when an elected official lies to his constituents, it's less akin to a sultan lying to the people than a minister lying to the sultan. It is illegal. It is corrosive to democratic government. And as a citizen of the United State of America, I'll be pretty thoroughly pissed off if my president lied to me, I don't care why. It may happen all the time, but it is still illegal, and in a democracy elected officials don't get to hide behind "father knows best" paternalism if they lie to us. We, the people, are the ultimate authority.

(2) To have a competant democracy, the Iraqi's should have faith in whatever government they vote in is not a just a puppet of the US but a government which has complete sovereignty over the country.

That is what "winning the hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people means. No, it is not the sole responsibility of the Anglo-American forces, and indeed cannot be to the extent that for the Iraqis to have faith in its truth it must be true.

However, this does dictate a basic change in the behavior of the occupying armies. Under normal circumstances throughout history, it has been the role of an occupying army to ride roughshod over the indigenous residents in order to protect itself from them and extract whatever it is that the invasion was over from them. If the US behaves in this manner in Iraq (It already has in some cases) we're going to lose because the Iraqis will hate our guts, and the indigenous government will likely fall just due to hatred garnered by association with us.

Thus, as I said, "winning the hearts and minds" of the Iraqis is an integral part of the war.

(3) The US support of the Israeli state and its oppression of the Palestinians is a complex issue; unlike the "glitzy ad campaigns" we've seen from the Arab states in recent years, the Israelis have Americans pretty well convinced that they're the Good Guys, despite all the evil things they do ( [link] ). Disentangling this issue would be very, very difficult; things are such that it doesn't matter what the Israelis do or how much its splashed across the TV; many Americans are convinced that the Israeli state wouldn't kill/maim/blow up/torture/bulldoze the homes of anybody who didn't "deserve it." Of course, it's hard for rational people to argue that the 100 children the IDF killed last year "deserved it," that it's morally acceptable to blow up ambulances, etc, but in the past the Israelis have gone so far as to attack an unarmed US Navy vessel (The USS Liberty) and machine gun sailors attempting to escape in life boats, then claim (bizarrely) that they mistook the ship for an Egyptian vessel which looked nothing like the US ship, yet they still have a glowing public image in the US.

This condition is such that I don't know of any way for the US to win the trust of the Arab World. When it comes right down to it, I don't think that US interests coincide with the interests of the Arab governments, but US interests do coincide with those of the Arabs themselves, so this mistrust is unfortunate.

In so far as the Iraqi war is a catalyst for change, it may be a good thing, it may be a bad thing. The situation on the ground is certainly different, and nobody is going to miss Saddam Hussein. A stable democracy in Iraq would certainly be a Good Thing, but that if a far from forgone conclusion of the war, and there are many, many other consequences to this and any war. Thus, I continue to hold that it is far too premature to pronounce the Iraq War a Good Thing™.

Joe Cocomo

he stopped acusing at that point

spend more time spreading the word than trying to stop it. that makes you a demon, not a brother

I'm a demon? Paul may have stopped accusing, but you certainly have not.

Perhaps I am blind, but if I am I trust that God will save me, but you've still got a log in your eye.

Go with God,
Joe Cocomo

the log refers to my brethren in christ. not those in the world that challenge the Word of God by claiming the Word is of an individual interpretation or that deny what is plainly written. the first two sentences out of any lost man are"you're judging" and "that's your interpretation". when i hear either of the two i'm not judging but discerning the speaker to have pages torn out of their bible or be completely lost. examples: if joe had dealings with a local man known to be lacking ethics and i said "joe must be criminal too" and joe was a christian that, would be judging my brother and the log jesus was referring to. if i see the preacher go into the liquor store and i don't know if he is backsliding or if he just saw one of his flock go in then, i am judging. if i speak the scriptures verbatim or in my own words to someone laying his sin on his sleeve by broadcasting blasphemy on the world wide web then, that's discerning or interpreting the meaning and not judging. i can't judge joe my brother because he may be trying to turn the man around but, joe's friend who openly spews lies about the whole christian faith, i can judge with righteous judgment. i will be glad to offer chapter and verse. see what i mean? these are silly arguments with someone who doesn't know or believe that is going to tell someone who does, how to interpret their own God. i have made the study of scripture my life since leaving the churches of atheism and agnosticism and doubt. you go study and we'll discuss it then. it's a waste of my time arguing the truth with someone that knows two verses of an entire religion and comes to the defense of open antichristian behavior.

I will concur that this is a waste of time; mine and your's.

It is quite clear that neither of us will sway the other in any way, and that the only fruit of this is going to be unseemly arguing. So how about I pray for you and you pray for me and the Holy Spirit sorts it all out?

Go with God,
Joe Cocomo

You missed my point that the War on Iraq isn't necessarily a good thing, as there are risks associated with any conflict (although I think that risk is worth it). But the fact that the US is getting involved in Iraq and also reaching out to the rest of the world is not just a good thing, its a great thing. Its about time the US stopped ignoring the conflicts that go on around the world and is proactive in helping to resolve those problems. Of course, if this was all up to the American people, I doubt anything substantial would be done as the long term effects of such actions are hard to comprehend and the money involved in such global interaction would seem prohibitive. But as the worlds only superpower with the capability to do so, and often looked to as the worlds policeman, the US should really get involved in a global scale, more than it is now. And as a Sri Lankan, I can tell you that US pressure on the LTTE terrorists has resulted in a ceasefire that has lasted for a few years now, after about 2 decades of fighting with the government, thanks to the War on Terror. If the US can help solve the problems in Kashmir, Israel/Palestine, etc. then I think they should.

You are a nieve fool, away and read holy blood holy grail! Try Sun Tzus art of war as well you muppet, glad your anti-bush. But your just a nieve Christian i feel sorry for you as you have been blinded by something that can't actually be proved, but hay it's your faith and if your happy i'm happy for you, i was raised as a bapist for a large proportion of ma life but it simply wasn't for me, if you can go threw life obaying all of societies laws and christs on top of that you must have a really fun time.

Your point is that the war on Iraq isn't necessarily a good thing? You're allowed to change your mind, but I'm afraid this is patently irreconcilable with your above comment of May 15th that "the War in Iraq is a 'good thing'" :)

In any case, you are most likely right that "the fact that the US is getting involved in Iraq and also reaching out to the rest of the world is not just a good thing, its a great thing." US foreign policy is a strange beast. Since the turn of the last century, it has undergone a weird isolationist-activist cycle; during a period of relative global peace the US becomes increasingly isolationist until it comes to neglect its critical role in global stability. Eventually, world events converge in a way as to present a serious threat to US National Security or National Interests, as with the sinking of the Lusitania, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, or the attacks of September 11, 2001. This leads to an activist US foreign policy until the threat has subsided and the world enters a period of relative global peace. Rinse, lather, repeat.

As it stands, I think you are incorrect in your conclusion that "if this was all up to the American people, I doubt anything substantial would be done as the long term effects of such actions are hard to comprehend and the money involved in such global interaction would seem prohibitive." The post-9/11 atmosphere in the US was such that people were quite prepared to go to war in Afghanistan and engage in a much wider activist policy throughout the globe. The war in Iraq was much more controversial because the connection bet tween the attacks on the US and Iraq were tenuous at best, however the American People are still quite prepared to engage in an activist foreign policy for years or decades.

This, in the widest sense, does look like it will be a good thing. The Islamist terrorist movement and the global conditions underlying it are a serious problem in the world today. Over the past century or so, the US has had a perfect record when it comes to ending global problems which have threatened its national security. In the long run, many peoples' lives throughout the world have been improved in the process as well. If history is any guide, I think that it is likely that we will see a free, democratic middle-east in the next 50 years and that it will be in part due to US pressure and intervention.

Bear in mind, however, that US intervention is a double edged sword. If propping up (insert slimy, brutal dictator here) over the objections of the people he's oppressing coincides with US interests, we'll do it without flinching, right or wrong. (You may not like it, and I certainly hate it, but its true.)

That said, after hearing about kidnappings/killing/bombings and the rape & torture of detainees in Sri Lanka because of the civil war between the Tamil Tigers and the government since before I can remember, I am very pleased that my government has helped bring about a ceasefire. Furthermore, the umbrella of US power is only so big, but if my country can help solve the problems in Kashmir, Palestine, Tibet, the Uhigar region, Sub-Saharan Africa, Chechnya, or any of the other places with armed conflicts going on ( [link] ) we should. It's in our best interests, in the best interests of the world at large, and it's also just the right thing to do.

Joe Cocomo

It seems that you just don't get it. Almost every article on the Iraq war has a comment by me more or less proclaiming that it is a good thing to have gone into Iraq. Foobies who have been here longer that you have will know my stance on that and I am not going to repeat myself so that people like you can argue for the sake of arguing.
It is often difficult to look from a distance and make a judgement on whether involvement is necessary or right, but you should really take a trip to Iraq to see how things have improved since the fall of Saddams regime, rather than listen completely to the sensationalist media.
Oh, and random "volunteer work" or researching things on the Internet doesn't really give you any insight to what life is like on the ground but as I said, if you've lived in the Middle East like I have, then you will have no doubt in your mind that going to Iraq was a good thing, and I haven't changed my mind, I just needed to clarify my stance for you so you could understand it better :).

i'm not trying to sway you. i only spoke the word of God. it may have not been spoken verbatim in King James English but, all the same i spoke scripture.do you just pick out of the bible what you want to believe? believe it all or believe none of it joe. scripture is a delicate balance. you can judge righteously without having a log in your eye. jesus and the disciples spelled out plainly that you were to watch out who you sit down and ate with. men that openly deny God. at the same time Jesus ate with sinners of the likes of whores and drunkards. why? because they were open to the truth even though they were vile people. rightly dividing the Word is for the saved only. if you don't have the ability to read the scriptures and believe it all or see there's no contradiction, only complement then, you may want to search your own heart. you are obviously on the right path but are beset by some things. God didn't give us a flawed roadmap to a perfect savior. he gave us truth that the world doesn't understand. i at one time didn't understand it myself. God called me just like some of the diciples. i wasn't in church or brainwashed by some preacher. God called me in my own house. in my own bedroom. from a life that i thought was good. that's how real He is. that's why I believe. not because someone told me so. do you have any idea how difficult it is to tell people this. they don't want to hear first and foremost but, they absolutely deny that it's possible to humble your mind long enough to let God speak to them. they call us nuts because we can't prove God spoke to us. we should be of one mind and one accord. fighting the good fight on the same side. people call this religion but, it's not. it's who we are. i'm not a religious zealot. i'm a man that was walking down damascus road and spewing hatred towards the cross and Jesus came to me and rebuked me in total love. gave me something i didn't deserve. my eyes were opened and my mind was freed. the world denies it can happen. my wisdom and knowledge were increased and i could see the big picture. me and you meeting here is no accident. God crosses paths to achieve his purpose. i hope you do pray for me. i prayed for you before i entered this site. why? because i knew someone like you was here. so close but, so far away. read that bible and pray and let the Holy Spirit speak and you will see i spoke truth to you. you can have compassion on these ignorant ones and still speak truth without blaspheming God by defending their open antichristian behavior. we must love them all. even the ones we don't like. understand? i am so sure of what i believe that i am not afraid to die. are you?do you believe with your whole heart? hey, we're all sinners joe. yet, sinning and publicly promoting it is blasphemy. the bible says that in the end times[which could be many years] people will no longer be ashamed of their sin. i sin but, i take it to God, to other christians. not the world wide web. with the heart i believe unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made. i sin with my hands and feet all the while the heart is crying out. i defend no man's open sin. Jesus defended the woman at the well from physical harm but,he told her "go and sin no more". God bless.

Fair dues, they're was reason to go into Iraqi, but was it reason enough for the U.N.? I saw Tony Blair in front of a un pannel, all they asked him was were was the evidence of iraqis capabilities to make nuclear weapons? answer to this, there wasn't any, now don't get me wrong saddam was an asshole, his people were suffering, but it's not what you know it's what you can prove.