" The casualty of the US led invasion is the UN system itself which has lost all credibility in the region."

The tragedy is that the UN has lost credibility everywhere. They were helpless in Ruanda and are doing nothing about the latest genocide in Darfur. However, should the UN itself be blamed for its impotence? I believe they are not garnering enough support from the major powers who are inclined to do things their own way. Bush, Blair and others are so embroiled in the Iraq war that very little pressure is being placed on Khartoum to "sort out" the Darfur problem. Furthermore, Somalia is heading for civil and cross-border war.

The casualty is the United States. Nothing we said about Iraq and the danger to the U.S. was true. Nothing we said about how the war would unfold was true. We have MORE Moslems that are willing to attacks us then before we invaded Iraq. The man that planned 9/11 is still free and the war in Afghanistan is not going well. I would say we are the causality!

The casualty is the United States. Nothing we said about Iraq and the danger to the U.S. was true. Nothing we said about how the war would unfold was true. We have MORE Moslems that are willing to attacks us then before we invaded Iraq. The man that planned 9/11 is still free and the war in Afghanistan is not going well. I would say we are the causality!

Col Gene,
It is a pity you keep spouting such trash, you complain about the President lying to us yet you fear telling the truth. I can understand you feeling like we are losing but you have to look at things objectively sooner or later. I will try it again so maybe you can see what you refuse to admit if not maybe others will see this and understand how full of hate and crap you are.

You use the term col in your handle but it is obvious that you are not in the military or you would understand that wars are fluid and battle plans are only starting points. The war unfolded pretty much as it was supposed to. The only wrinkle so far is other nations have gotten into the mix kicking up a little dust. You are blinded by the dust and can’t see what is really happening. In all of Iraq you are only getting news reports from Bagdad the “war correspondents” don’t seem eager to find or report what is happening around the country. 2 thirds of the nation of Iraq is quiet and under control so all you have reported is 1 third of a nation in turmoil. The Kurdish part of the nation has had 2 bombings in the three years since we invaded. People walk the streets in peace yet you don’t hear about that much. It seems that the only places where there is turmoil is where the press people are. I wonder why that is?

You say that there are more Muslims out to hurt us than before we invaded Iraq. Then I guess you missed the point when bin Laden offered to fight Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. Did you think he only had a few hundred people to do this? Did you think they would use terror tactics? There are thousands of them scattered around the world we are just seeing the ones he can pull in that are local along with a few idiots he can con into joining the fight. Are they all AQ? No but most are. The people fighting in Iraq are less than a third Iraqi the rest are AQ and Iranian or Syrian recruits. You must have missed the reports of dead fighters carrying Iranian military documents. The number of people that want to harm America are the same they are just concentrating in Iraq which is a good thing for us.

As far as Iraq is concerned I am sorry to say that people do not want to be wiser after the event. The US led invasion has led to a dramatic rise inb the elan of the al-qaeda all over the Middle East. Iraq has becomne a safe haven for Islamic militants after the invasio and the USA is not in a position to sustain its invasion. The regime in the Green Zone will not hold and people have begun to leave the country.

I agree with you Col, this war's costs are vastly outweighing the rewards. Even if there would eventually be a success, in a reasonably time, lets say a stable democratic government inside of 3 more years. We'd still have North Korea with a nuke, and Iran with a good possibility of having a nuke.

As for when this problem will be solved, I would have to say that once our involvement on the ground ceases and things find a new equilibrium inside Iraq that's when the violence will subside, not cease but become a lesser daily thing then it is today.

As for Iraqi's if they want freedom they have to fight for it in their own streets. We weren't given a free nation from the British, or any other country that came to our aid and fought down Penn. Ave for our freedoms. We had to take up arms and fight for it, until the enemy gave up. We did it, they can too. They aren't fighting the most powerful army or navy in the world as we did at the time. They aren't fighting with a rag tag force of civilians, they have a starter force as well as Iraqi's volunteering daily to secure their neighborhoods.

I mean do you need the lighted exit sign at the back of the theater to know this show's over?

If we stay, we aren't adding any more stability then would already be there if we left, because it is clear with the large number of troops on the ground that we can't control the situation hardly at all even with a large "police force". All the "experts" agree, what we are doing, or how we are doing it rather, isn't working, yet nobody can agree on a solution, or new course.

I have a real simple solution. Pull out. We'll eventually be leaving anyway, win or lose, to deal with North Korea, or Iran, or our own "major terrorist event" if you would believe the end of the world crowd, and it will be up to the world as it should be whether or not we or they need a stable Iraq.