Oops, someone forgot to take his Prozac this morning.

I think it is a stretch to say the war in Iraq is about protecting oil. If that were the case, why is gas so expensive (aside from all the taxes on it)? If you are getting your information from the MSM you are coming up short. We are rebuilding schools and hospitals. Buildings, I might add, that were in disrepair long before the war. Did we secure the oil fields, Yes! I know you were a little kid during the first Gulf war so I will help you. The Iraqis set the oil fields on fire and caused a terrible environmental problem as well as a major health problem. We wanted to secure the fields right from the start so they would not have a chance to do it again. Many of the fields were wired to be detonated and we had to clean up that mess. And you guys say Bush is hard on the environment.

If we were so arrogant about oil we would say screw everyone and drill in Alaska. Our government is going through a lengthy process to try and drill because that is the way the environmentalists want it. They decry us protecting oil supplies and drive SUVs, they just don't want us producing our own oil.

The United Nations is a corrupt organization. Before we contribute one more penny to it we need to see reform. I would just as soon leave. The world did fine without them for many years. I don't know where this study you cite comes from. I can tell you that there are a great deal of countries who are glad we are fighting the war on terror. Wars are necessary. Get the Bible you said you have and read how God inspired David to raise up an Army against the enemies of God. Sometimes war is necessary. We were attacked. I know that many on the left say we were attacked because of our policies and we pissed off the Arabs. Be that as it may, it did not give them the right to murder 3000 innocent Americans. The way I see it, we did not like Hussein's policy of murdering his own people and supporting terrorism. So we acted on our dislike of their policies. There, that should help use the left's logic to justify the war.

The Secretary of Defense does not need to sign all the condolence letters. Do you think the Sec Def signed them during WWII or Vietnam? This is petty and if that is all you can come up with you are reaching.

"The world did fine without them for many years."

WWI & WWII ring a bell?

And neither Iraq nor any Iraqi attacked us, Dig Dug.

"The way I see it, we did not like Hussein's policy of murdering his own people and supporting terrorism. So we acted on our dislike of their policies. There, that should help use the left's logic to justify the war."

The way I see it, we did not want Hussein to give nukes to Osama. At least that is what everyone was told. The inconvenient fact that he a) had no nukes or any other WMD and b) had no relationship with AQ means you have to keep invented new rationales for your pet war, ad hoc. And I'm sure the Iraqis are super pumped that we've taken the job of murdering them over from Saddam. Try and tell me all the dead are "terrorists" or even "insurgents" when about 1/3 of Falluja is levelled.

Don't try and understand the left's logic, man. It requires logic.

But, hey. We were attacked by "the Arabs", right? So screw'em. "The Arabs" had it coming.

Sell jingoism somewhere else, dud.

Well Mr Wanker, It would seem that I struck some sort of raw nerve with you.

Let us get a few things straight. I did not reinvent any reason for war. I merely put it in terms that matched those given in Adam's rant. WW I and WW II ring lots of bells. I doubt that the UN could have prevented them. Hitler would have listened to the UN the way Hussein did.

There were WMD there. They were probably moved but there is no doubt they were there. You care to explain why the top nuclear scientist of Iraq said he was developing a nuke for Hussein?

Your assertion that he had no relationship with AQ is flawed. Hussein met with bin Laden on a number of occassions. Zarkowi (I know I spelled that wrong) got medical help in Iraq after he was injured fighting in Afghanistan.

I would also submit that the gazillion tons of explosives destroyed by our troops constitute WMD. What was that peaceful man going to do with them?

We were attacked by radical Islamic fundamentalists who have no regard for human life.

As for logic, you can not make a valid argument by calling people names. It negates any validity you might have had. Adam, this is the name calling you said you found silly. I really don't care what you call me Wanker. I have served my time and am proud of it. I am well educated and find your boorish attempt at insult quite amusing.

You go have a time out and when you are able to construct a valid argument without insulting those with whom you don't agree, you will be allowed to participate. Adam, it is your job to babysit Wanker until he can play nice......

"Oops, someone forgot to take his Prozac this morning."

"Well Mr Wanker, It would seem that I struck some sort of raw nerve with you."

I'm sensing a pattern here. Calling names? Waa.

But for the record, "dud" was supposed to be "dude". But since you were amused anyway, so what?

"I doubt that the UN could have prevented them. Hitler would have listened to the UN the way Hussein did."

Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace

The U.N. and it's member nations would have been bound to "supress" Germany after the invasion of Poland. "Listening to" the U.N. would not have been unecessary. Just like what happened after Saddam invaded Kuwait. They, under righteous and justified U.S. leadership, made a determination that that action violated the Charter, so they grouped up and kicked him out of there.

"I would also submit that the gazillion tons of explosives destroyed by our troops constitute WMD."

You'd be wrong. They were allowed under sanctions, and do not fit the definition anyway.

"What was that peaceful man going to do with them?"

What do we need ours for, then?

"We were attacked by radical Islamic fundamentalists who have no regard for human life."

None of whom were Iraqi or had any connection to Iraq. Iraq was the least radical and most secular Muslim nations in the Middle East. Unfortunately, that will probably now change.

"You care to explain why the top nuclear scientist of Iraq said he was developing a nuke for Hussein?"

Show me. Regardless, desire and capability are very different things. Furthermore, once the inspectors were back in, any justification for invasion vanished.

"Hussein met with bin Laden on a number of occassions."

There is no evidence anything ever came of it. Also, OBL met with lots of people. Do we invade all of their countries, too?

"Zarkowi (I know I spelled that wrong) got medical help in Iraq after he was injured fighting in Afghanistan."

There is no evidence this had anything to do with Saddam's regime. Also, he operated from the autonomous Kurdish region.

On and on and on. But hey, you're not conviced are ya? Sadly, you never will be. Sadder still, when it inevitably and finally becomes obvious to you that our invasion and occupation of Iraq did little or nothing to improve U.S. security . . . and could very well have made it worse by creating dissent, fostering disorder, and exhausting the treasure that could have been put to better use elsewhere and in other ways . . . you will blame US for it. The ones who never wanted and firmly opposed this war.

Like Vietnam, in your mind the "loss" will be the fault of the spineless "liberal left" who were not enthusiastic enough about this wasteful, stupid mistake and "undermined our troops", won't you? It will be all you can do to alleviate the cognitive dissonance created after facts at last crash headlong into the fantasy.

You don't think that will happen of course. Like teenagers who think they're invincible never think it will happen to them.

And I'll be here to tell you "I told you so".

But I'll try not to call you a name.

That, Mr. Wanker is the way to present an argument. It is well structured and without the name calling to draw from your argument, it gives the appearance that you formulated cogent thoughts and expressed them clearly.

I assumed dud was suppose to be dude but dig dug was too far off. I don't care, though without the distraction your points seem more mature.

"for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace"

That is the stated purpose. When put in to practice the UN troops tend to run at the first sign of trouble. They were manhandled by the warlords in Somolia and gave them free reign. This resulted in loss of supplies and lots of suffering on the part of the Somoli people who desperately needed the food. The UN would have taken one look at Hitler's Panzers and they would have turned tail and ran.

The UN passed the resolutions when it came to Kuwait. The US formed the coalition and carried out the war. The UN had a role as a spectator. The UN let Hussein go for 14 years and did nothing. The weapons inspectors were helpless because their efforts were thwarted. I know some of the weapons inspectors and their stories differ greatly than what the general population believes.

Explosives in large quantity are weapons of mass destruction. They might have been allowed under the terms of the sanctions but I am sure the sanctions did not allow Hussein to let people strap them to their children and walk into Israel. I am sure if Hussein did not violate the sanctions he could have kept them. We have ours for a number of reasons, none of which include using them for suicide bombing.

The people on the planes came from many countries. Iraq was not one of them however Iraq supported AQ. OBL met with Hussein to discuss training camps, attainment of weapons, and how Iraq could help in any attack on America. Whether anything came of it or not, Hussein was more than willing to help.

Zarkowi was treated in Baghdad. We learned this from papers we captured in Baghdad. That is not a Kurdish region. It was the principle residence of Hussein. The terrorist responsible for the death of Leo Klinghoffer was given safe haven in Baghdad by Hussein..

I am convinced that Iraq was a gathering storm. I guess I could ask what it would take to convince you that we were not safe. If 9/11 did not show you then what will? I can not say that the invasion has not made us safer. We have not been attacked since 9/11. Given that we were attacked regularly during the last administration, I find that comforting. We will not lose and even if we did I would not blame you for it. You are obviously not a combatant. The loss in VN was caused by many things. Among them was the V V AW who gave the enemy hope that if they held on they could win. It was caused by politicians who would not let our troops fight the way we needed to in order to win. We could have creamed them and been done with it. Don't forget. VN was run by the democrats so they are responsible for the conduct of the war.

I don't think the troops are undermined too much. There is a small faction that wants to see them lose but most real Americans support them. Whether you support the war or not, there is no reason not to support the troops.

I would not hold my breath waiting to say I told you so. We have seen good things because of the GWOT. Libya giving up WMD, other countries hunting terrorists. I am proud to be an American and I will not allow terrorists to ruin our way of life or to dictate how we live. I am prepared to engage them at any time to protect my country. I know you do not support the war but are you prepared to fight the terrorists if they are allowed to wage the fight here?

Mr. Wanker, you may call me any name you like. If Big Dog does not suit you then you can try First Sergeant or Top.

Today the US pledged 350 million dollars to the tsunami victims. We did it after assessing the situation.

Perhaps this will stifle the stingy American talk.

Adam, to you and your readers I wish a happy, safe, and healthy New Year.