Four more years?

[JimR]

Get your facts right, The USA provided to the allies money,arms and other military gear in huge volumes a long time before they entered the war.

My facts are right. The US did supply gear. But the US was not geared up for war in the beginning. Had the Japs pushed us after Pearl Harbor they could have landed in California. Our Pacific Fleet was nearly destroyed except for the carriers.

 

[JimR]

Review your history. We did not go to war with Germany because of their treatment of Jews, Poles or any other citizens. We went to war with them because they were attacking other nations, nations we considered our allies. I don't believe the killing of Jews in the Holocaust started until after our involvement in the war, and we never used it as an excuse for our involvement. In fact, it wasn't generally known until the war was over. There is no comparison with the present conflict, no matter how hard you try to stretch it to make one.

We didn't go to war with Germany because they were attacking our allies. We went to war with Germany because Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor and forced the US into the war. Japan was an ally of Germany. Once we declared war on Japan we had to also declare war on Germany.

 

[OkeeDon]

We didn't go to war with Germany because they were attacking our allies. We went to war with Germany because Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor and forced the US into the war. Japan was an ally of Germany. Once we declared war on Japan we had to also declare war on Germany.

What's the difference? A little while ago, you were claiming we went to war with Germany because they were killing Jews, just like Saddam was killing Kurds. I said you were wrong, and you were. The real reason doesn't matter.

 

[JimR]

What's the difference? A little while ago, you were claiming we went to war with Germany because they were killing Jews, just like Saddam was killing Kurds. I said you were wrong, and you were. The real reason doesn't matter.

Don, Go back and read my post. I NEVER said we went to war with Germany because they were killing Jews.

 

[daedong]

My facts are right. The US did supply gear. But the US was not geared up for war in the beginning. Had the Japs pushed us after Pearl Harbor they could have landed in California. Our Pacific Fleet was nearly destroyed except for the carriers.

The US had more capabilities to enter the war than most of the other allies. PERIOD. Had pearl harbour not been bombed i would be talking Japanese.

I thank the Japanese for bombing pearl harbour.

 

[OkeeDon]

Don, Go back and read my post. I NEVER said we went to war with Germany because they were killing Jews.

And what you are saying stands OK for Hitler and the Jews in Germany too right? There was no need for us to get involved in a war with Germany. They were only killing off a small part of their population. No biggy right. I think not.

OK, you tell me how to interpret your remarks.

 

[JimR]

OK, you tell me how to interpret your remarks.

I was comparing your comments about Saddam Hussein to Hilter in Germany killing off the Jews. You said that Hussein had things under control and it was just him and his kids killing off a few people or whatever. So I compared that to Hitler killing off a few people in Germany and that there was no need for us to go over their either. Right?

 

[jdwilson44]

We didn't go to war with Germany because they were attacking our allies. We went to war with Germany because Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor and forced the US into the war. Japan was an ally of Germany. Once we declared war on Japan we had to also declare war on Germany.

This is true - I just started reading Pat Buchanan's book " A Republic - Not an Empire" and he makes the point that the US declared war on Japan just after the Pearl Harbor attack, then Germany declared war on us - and then we declared war on them. This is obviously a debateable point - but you could ask the question - if Germany had not declared war on the US - would the US have declared war on Germany? We did not get involved in WWII with anything other than monetary aid and some Lend Lease aid to Britain and other Allied countries before the attack on Pearl Harbor. People in the US were not stupid - they knew the war was coming (there was a peacetime draft instituted), but there was also a very large part of the population that wanted nothing to do with a "European War". You must also remember that the carnage of WWI was still fresh in the minds of people in the US just before WWII. I have seen newsreels where ordinary US citizens are interviewed in the late 30's early 40's period (before we entered the war) and most of them are commenting that they don't think we should get involved.

There is much debate in some of the political and history forums and blogs I go to occasionally about how US involvement with the rest of the world got started with Woodrow Wilson and his League of Nations idea at the end of WWI. The US then went back to somewhat of an isolationist state in the 20's and 30's. Then we got sucked back into European and Asian affairs with the outcome of WWII. There also seems to be a growing attitude among many commenters and citizens (take the Dubai ports deal for example) - that the US would be a lot better off if we dis-engaged from the world somewhat and took care of our own problems for a change.

I quite frankly share that sentiment.

 

[jdwilson44]

Review your history. We did not go to war with Germany because of their treatment of Jews, Poles or any other citizens. We went to war with them because they were attacking other nations, nations we considered our allies. I don't believe the killing of Jews in the Holocaust started until after our involvement in the war, and we never used it as an excuse for our involvement. In fact, it wasn't generally known until the war was over. There is no comparison with the present conflict, no matter how hard you try to stretch it to make one.

The Germans were ramping up their concentration camps well before we ever entered the war. They had in fact established the model for their concentration camps in the mid 30's and there were many political prisoners and some Jews that got sent away well before the war even started in 1939. You need to define the words "generally known" - because it WAS known to the Allies that the Germans were processing large amounts of people thru the concentration camps. There were reports from escaped prisoners, partisans, shot down airman, POW's etc. Incidents such as Babi Yar and atrocities in the Ukraine, Poland, and USSR also made their way into the papers in the US during the war. There were also intelligence reports to the US and other goverments ( you learn a lot on the History Channel) - so only the completely ignorant would have been caught totally unaware of at least the existence of the camps. The Nazis also made it pretty clear what their goals were thru their political writings and speeches. In the end I think one of the main things that shocked people was just the brutal efficiency of the whole enterprise. There was no way the "Final Solution" could be viewed as anything but deliberate when you look at the planning and execution of the whole affair.

 

[OkeeDon]

The Germans were ramping up their concentration camps well before we ever entered the war.

Granted. However, the concentration camps initially were just that -- slave labor camps, relocation camps, isolation camps, whatever you choose to call them. The wholesale slaughter of millions of Jews and Eastern Europeans did not begin until after we had entered the war. As far as "generally known" is concerned, I meant to imply that if the wholesale slaughter was known by our leadership, it was not acknowledged or announced -- it was most certainly never used as an excuse to enter or continue the war, the way Saddam's killings are being used today to try to justify this pathetic excuse for a war. When the death camps were liberated at the end of the war, there was general horror at the deeds, and claims that the acts were unknown until that time. My point is that the two situations are vastly different, and there is no way that JimR or anyone else can use one to justify the other. I believe my point remains valid, even though I apparently have to repeat it every few minutes in order to keep the discussion on track.

 

[Junkman]

IN THE SHADOW OF DEATH Living Outside the Gates of Mauthausen. By Gordon J. Horwitz.

New York Times knew and for the most part was silent...

Pope Pius XII also knew......

 

[thcri]

I was going to stay out of this discussion just because I should But just a couple of pennies worth.

I firmly believe the Iraqi people are better off. The thing that frustrates me the most is the media in my opinion has twisted the truth so bad. If it is so bad over there now then why is it that people I know very well who use to be totally against the war, has kids in the war and are now changing their mind about the war after listening to the stories their kids are saying. I have a girl in my office who pretty much has called Bush just about everything you can think of. But today just 6 months after her son was placed in Iraq she has totally changed her mind. The Iraqi people are happy we are there.

However, this civil war crap is something the Bush Administration, all the Republicans and Democrats should have seen as a great possibility.

Sadam did keep everyone in line but I also think he was one not to be trusted. The WMD, no we didn't find any but we sure gave Sadam a lot of time to hide them or dismantle them. Even though we did not find any I bet they are there someplace. A lot of Democrats and Republicans who voted for the war are now placeing blame on how Bush handled everything. But yet have no ideas or good plans to change the course nor do they think we should get out. Monday morning quarterbacks I call them.

I don't like this war, I was for it at first but now I am not sure. By us going over there we are trying to change a culture and that can't be done. Could there have been a replacement for Sadam that they people would have accepted? I think a Dem from PA was on Meet the press last Sunday and I wanted to whaack him up along side his head. However, he did have one constructive criticism so I won't whaack him. He did say we could not pull out now, but he also said we need more troops over there to clean up before we can start bringing troops back. He also said that we went in there without enough help. I agreed with him.

So I didn't say anything here other than a bunch of mumbo jumbo

 

[JimR]

Don, I understand how you feel about the war in Iraq. I on the other hand was and still for us going over there. Unfortunately this war has dragged on too long even for my liking. They should have had some iraq's kill Sadam as soon as he was captured. No trial no jury no decisions to be made, just a nice public hanging by his own people. I also tried to volunteer to go over there a few years ago and was turned down because I was too old. I'd still volunteer for sniper duty if I could. One other note. I have a nephew that is on his third tour of Iraq. he said that the media sucks for not telling the story about Iraq the way it should be told. He said the friggin Liberal Democratic Assholes in the Media should not be lying to the people. Those are his words, Not mine.

 

[OkeeDon]

One other note. I have a nephew that is on his third tour of Iraq. he said that the media sucks for not telling the story about Iraq the way it should be told. He said the friggin Liberal Democratic Assholes in the Media should not be lying to the people. Those are his words, Not mine.

That may be so. I'm not in Iraq, so I have no way to dispute the claims. However, there is a powerful attitude within the military to justify their situation. I have several young members of the military, offspring of some of my own friends for the most part, who have included me on their email lists, for some reason. They are constantly bombarding me with various anecdotes, 98% of which are quashed in Snopes.com as myths. After I reply to a few of their emails with the snopes references, they usually remove me from their list. They don't want to be confused with facts.

 

[OkeeDon]

I will say only this about people who supported the invasion of Iraq in the first place. The true information was available. The death rate was predicted. The enormous expense was predicted. The recruitment of additional terrorists as a result of our actions, resulting in a deadly insurgency, was predicted. The probablity of a civil was between Sunnis and Shiites was predicted. The possibility that we would get bogged down in a Vietnam-like quagmire was predicted. The need for additional troops was predicted. All the information was there for anyone who cared to look for it.

On the other side were people who I instinctively distrust, and I suppose therein lies the difference. If the Neocons and the Bush administration folks were to report that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow, I would immediately stock up on flashlights. The rest of you chose to believe their bumbling excuses and lies for some ungodly reason. I'll never understand it.

Even worse, is that some folks still think it was the right thing to do. I give up. I don't know how much evidence is needed to convince them otherwise. It's still all out there. As for these happy-go-lucky troops who report that everything in Iraq is hunky-dory and feel-good, I guess they weren't among the majority of troops who recently reponded to a poll that we should get out of Iraq.

 

[mtntopper]

Whether you are for or against more years in Iraq does not matter as much as supporting the military people trying to make a difference in Iraq. I find it quite hard to be against any cause that costs America lives as this to me is disloyalty to the US military troops that are sacrificing their lives for others. Take a moment whether you are for or against the war and just thank God we have troops that can do what they must in the world to preserve our way of life.

Please click on the link below and wait for it to load and think about how this war affects others not just yourself.

http://www.forest.ws/WeSupportU.htm

 

[JimR]

I believe that if you are an American you should support the troops that protect you. If you can't, then don't expect them to protect you if that time should ever come to happen here. My father fought in WWII. He survived 5 D-Day landings from North Africa, Sicily, Salerno, Anzio and Normandy. All this to turn into an alcoholic because of the war, then he died from it. His brother had a nervous breakdown in Germany during the war and had to be evacuated. He was shell shocked and never really recovered from it. I feel for any soldier that puts his life on the line for what he believes in, regardless of the situation. That is surely a lot more than I can say for the people in this country that protest the war. They are the true cowards of our society. The Media too is the true cowards of this country for not telling the whole truth instead of just their agenda to make Bush look like an idiot.

 

[OkeeDon]

Well, let's see. Who offers our troops the most support? Those who want to bring them home from a hopeless cause, a campaign bumbled by the civilian leaders, an effort that has killed more than 2,000 of them? Or, those who want to leave them there and continue to sacrifice them in the name of "saving" people who don't even want to be saved?

Remember, the name of this thread is "Four more years", and the subject is the incompetence of the boobs who put us in Iraq in the first place, not the quality of our brave young men and women who are trying with their very lives to do the job they should never have been asked to do.

 

[mtntopper]

But again the US military are there in harms way now. Second guessing at this time in the war does not save any soldiers life!!!!! Too many people are doing the second guessing game called (I was never for this war and Bush is incompetent) now that times are tough. Very easy today to have hindsight on this subject and say now we should of never of gone there.

My Opinion:
Real change must come from within and cannot be long term if not accepted by the people being affected. The two (Shite & Sunni) religions have been at war forever. This will not change until one side completely controls and or dominates the other. When people live the way they do, life has no value. Our ideals and values cannot be forced upon those not wanting to change. Education is the major components to the US leaving Iraq a better place. Until we are able to educate the people there is more to life than the gun and one religon, we are stuck in Iraq.
Walking away now (whether you are for or against the war) serves no long term useful purpose. Commitment for change was made the day we invaded, to back away without resolve would show the rest of the world and future terrorists our inability to stand solid in any tough situation with or without the backing of our friends in other countries.
The numbers (of dead) in the past really mean very little when looking at improving the future of Iraqi people today. The commitment to change (educate to improve and secure their lives) and help the people is now and today.
Just my thoughts and beliefs, nothing personel to the many people that have other ideas and beliefs. May we just be able to resolve this quickly without more loss of American lives!!!!!

 

[beds]

I don't think that the general population of Iraq hate US troops. I don't think that's the same thing as them being better off now than they were. They're happy that there are some troops to police the anarchy in the streets that allows the insurgents to kill other Iraqis. Of course they want the troops there.

 

[beds]

Until we are able to educate the people there is more to life than the gun and one religon, we are stuck in Iraq.

Maybe the Canadians would be better teachers of this ideology.

 

[thcri]

Remember, the name of this thread is "Four more years", and the subject is the incompetence of the boobs who put us in Iraq in the first place, not the quality of our brave young men and women who are trying with their very lives to do the job they should never have been asked to do.

The boobs are everyone in the senate and congress. That includes democrats and republicans. Now the outcome can be blamed on the Bush administration but don't blame the republicans because we are there.


murph

 

[Ricochet]

Wow, what a thread!

• From all reports Saddam killed at least 600,000 of his own people over time. So, that’s only 25,000 a year to some…just 1 is bad enough. The 66,000 or so supposedly being killed a year in Iraq now is ridiculous…even the left driven < www.iraqbodycount.org > only has it a maximum of 38,000 over the past 3 years. Sure the media wants us to believe we are the cause of it all. The insurgents are the cause of it all! Also, I’m certainly more inclined to believe US troops I have personally talked to (mostly officers) over the liberal mainstream media. They have all said it was not a picnic, but there is more good than bad going on over there….something you rarely here from the media.
• We all now how WW2 started and the analogy of the Holocaust in comparison with Saddam’s rape rooms, torture chambers, chemical warfare testing on the Kurds in the North and mass graves is not a bad one. We all know Hitler and Saddam were no angels and were responsible for countless atrocities, so stopping them from commenting said atrocities was an added bonus to defeating fascism in both cases. On the same token, look at what happened when we just sat idly by while Hitler ramped up his Blitzkrieg killing machine. I wish we could have done a preemptive strike on the Nazis party before they became a serious threat to us and our allies…just think of the amount of people that could have been saved (millions!). So, doing so with Saddam was the right move i.e. better safe now than sorry later!
• So, we are just there for the oil and/or finishing what daddy couldn’t. If that is so…why haven’t we taken over complete control of their oil fields and funneled it all into lower gas prices here and funding the war? Blood for Oil is a loony left conspiracy theory from day 1, which many people subscribed to then and keep buying into for some reason.
• It took us years to more or less un-occupy Germany, Japan and Korea after war (and we're still in all of these countries). What makes the liberals think this war is going to be any different. War is never easy and rarely goes to plan. WE are there and we have a job to finish…like it or not. I support our troops 100% and the dissent, so-called peace marches < www.protestwarrior.com > and negative military rhetoric does nothing to help us get the job done right and out of Iraq faster.

 

[OkeeDon]

Second guessing at this time in the war does not save any soldiers life!!!!! Too many people are doing the second guessing game called (I was never for this war and Bush is incompetent) now that times are tough. Very easy today to have hindsight on this subject and say now we should of never of gone there.

Of course, you don't know me and have no way of knowing it, but I absolutely assure you that I was totally against our invasion of Iraq from the moment it was rumored. No second guessing, here.

So, we are just there for the oil and/or finishing what daddy couldn’t. If that is so…why haven’t we taken over complete control of their oil fields and funneled it all into lower gas prices here and funding the war? Blood for Oil is a loony left conspiracy theory from day 1, which many people subscribed to then and keep buying into for some reason.

You know, I think I can answer that. It's not a leftist loonie theory; it's something I came up with entirely on my own. (I suppose some might call me a loonie, but no one who knows me would call me a leftist loonie).

Consider the following. Before we invaded, Paul Wolfowitz, one of the primary architects or our invasion strategy, said that the profits from Iraq oil would pay to rebuild the country. That's a pretty clear indication that he expected that we would be in control of the oil distribution and would control how the profits were spent.

In the same time period, it became clear that France, Germany and Russia, among others, were adamantly opposed to our strategy. Each of them especially France from time to time, have been opposed to various schemes the United States has proposed, but it is rare, even unprecedented, for them all to be in such abject opposition on the same issue. What is it that they all had in common?

All of them had serious irons in the Iraqi oil fire. Russia and France had contracts with Iraq for the production and distribution of oil. Germany may have had something dimilar, but they primarily had contracts with Iraq for refinery and production equipment. In every case, if the US had taken control of Iraq's oil, those three countries would have been left sucking hind teat for the revenues that they expected would pay them back.

The interesting thing that happened next was an announcement, after the invasion, that Iraqi oil proceeds were going to be used to honor Iraq's debts, and that US taxpayers were going to have to foot the bill for the reconstruction of Iraq. Who were the recipients of this new policy? France, Germany and Russia, whose contracts were going to be honored, and who were going to be paid, while all of a sudden, it was us that was sucking hind teat.

All of the above is information that was announced at various times. I haven't bothered to dig up the precise quotes and references; many of you won't believe me no matter what I post, so I'm done wasting my time with proof. What follows next has not been published anywhere; it is my own, personal conclusion based on the facts above.

I sincerely believe that our intention to control Iraqi oil put us on the brink of WWIII, with France, Germany and Russia (all nuclear powers, or nucular as Bush would say) as our opponents. I believe they let it be known to our government that they were willing to go to war over the oil contracts, and I believe our wimpy, unbelievably stupid government backed down in the face of the threats.

How else can you reconcile that before the invasion, Iraq oil was to be used to rebuild the damage we caused, but after the invasion, that money was going to France, Germany and Russia, instead?

So, my theory is that we DID go to war to get the oil, and that we were faced down, and backed out. That's why we don't control it, now.

Check it out and prove me wrong.

 

[JimR]

Well, let's see. Who offers our troops the most support? Those who want to bring them home from a hopeless cause, a campaign bumbled by the civilian leaders, an effort that has killed more than 2,000 of them? Or, those who want to leave them there and continue to sacrifice them in the name of "saving" people who don't even want to be saved?

I remember hearing that same kind of talk during Vietnam. 50,000 plus troops were killed and those same people compliaing spit on the soldiers when they came home.

Hey Don, Do you have first hand knowledge that the Iraqi people don't want to be saved? I ask this because I have seen just the opposite on the news.

 

[beds]

Hey Don, Do you have first hand knowledge that the Iraqi people don't want to be saved? I ask this because I have seen just the opposite on the news.

Saved from what? Saved from the anarchy created by the power vaccuum left by the occupying force? Saved from a lawless land where once there was an iron fist (like it or not, Islamic law is harsh)? Yeah, I guess they do want to be saved from that.

 

[Ricochet]

Of course, you don't know me and have no way of knowing it, but I absolutely assure you that I was totally against our invasion of Iraq from the moment it was rumored. No second guessing, here.
You know, I think I can answer that. It's not a leftist loonie theory; it's something I came up with entirely on my own. (I suppose some might call me a loonie, but no one who knows me would call me a leftist loonie).

Consider the following. Before we invaded, Paul Wolfowitz, one of the primary architects or our invasion strategy, said that the profits from Iraq oil would pay to rebuild the country. That's a pretty clear indication that he expected that we would be in control of the oil distribution and would control how the profits were spent.

In the same time period, it became clear that France, Germany and Russia, among others, were adamantly opposed to our strategy. Each of them especially France from time to time, have been opposed to various schemes the United States has proposed, but it is rare, even unprecedented, for them all to be in such abject opposition on the same issue. What is it that they all had in common?

All of them had serious irons in the Iraqi oil fire. Russia and France had contracts with Iraq for the production and distribution of oil. Germany may have had something dimilar, but they primarily had contracts with Iraq for refinery and production equipment. In every case, if the US had taken control of Iraq's oil, those three countries would have been left sucking hind teat for the revenues that they expected would pay them back.

The interesting thing that happened next was an announcement, after the invasion, that Iraqi oil proceeds were going to be used to honor Iraq's debts, and that US taxpayers were going to have to foot the bill for the reconstruction of Iraq. Who were the recipients of this new policy? France, Germany and Russia, whose contracts were going to be honored, and who were going to be paid, while all of a sudden, it was us that was sucking hind teat.

All of the above is information that was announced at various times. I haven't bothered to dig up the precise quotes and references; many of you won't believe me no matter what I post, so I'm done wasting my time with proof. What follows next has not been published anywhere; it is my own, personal conclusion based on the facts above.

I sincerely believe that our intention to control Iraqi oil put us on the brink of WWIII, with France, Germany and Russia (all nuclear powers, or nucular as Bush would say) as our opponents. I believe they let it be known to our government that they were willing to go to war over the oil contracts, and I believe our wimpy, unbelievably stupid government backed down in the face of the threats.

How else can you reconcile that before the invasion, Iraq oil was to be used to rebuild the damage we caused, but after the invasion, that money was going to France, Germany and Russia, instead?

So, my theory is that we DID go to war to get the oil, and that we were faced down, and backed out. That's why we don't control it, now.

Check it out and prove me wrong.

Did you ever hear of the UN Oil for Food scandal, which all the countries you mentioned we're part of? Those countries were on Saddam’s take and liking it, so they opposed the invasion of Iraq accordingly. Your Blood for Oil theory was there on the left from the beginning...sorry you can't take credit for that loony left "idea".

WW3 with people we call allies? You have got to be kidding me. Now if you said, North Korea or Iran you might be on to something but even then that isn’t likely.

I'm still waiting on cheap gas like the Iraqi people have i.e. less than $.10 cents a gallon!

 

[beds]

I'm still waiting on cheap gas like the Iraqi people have i.e. less than $.10 cents a gallon!

Then it wouldn't be profitable for us to make it domestically.

 

[Junkman]

................ I'm still waiting on cheap gas like the Iraqi people have i.e. less than $.10 cents a gallon!

What good is 10 cent a gallon gasoline when your chances of being killed by a roadside device is about 99% once you leave your home... Face it, after WWII the countries that were defeated welcomed us to help them rebuild and move forward. The people of Iraq welcomed us when we invaded, but now, they want us out so they can gain control just like Saddam had. It is the goal of many of the people to rule the country just like Iran is ruled. I don't know how you can gain the trust of the people by education, because as was shown on TV today, the insurgents are even in the schools handing out their propaganda and indoctrination of the youngsters to hate the US and to join in the insurgency. They are teaching the youngest of the children of Iraq to become religious fanatics like them. The difference between this war and the Crusades, is that back then, the Muslims didn't have the money or know how to fight back as well as they do today. You don't win wars by selectively shooting only when you are shot at, you will when you break the will of the people to keep fighting. That is the reason that Truman dropped the Atom Bomb on Japan..... the first one was to show them that we could, and the second one was to prove that if they didn't give up the fight, there would be a third...... and a third bomb was in the planning, but wasn't needed. In war, there are only winners and losers...... you can't have a war with surgical precision between the warriors and the citizens... In Iraq, there are only warriors of both sects ready to fight to gain control. You can't bring democracy to people that don't want it or understand it. We cannot continue to fight this war with our soldiers having one hand tied behind their backs...

 

[mtntopper]

I don't know how you can gain the trust of the people by education, because as was shown on TV today, the insurgents are even in the schools handing out their propaganda and indoctrination of the youngsters to hate the US and to join in the insurgency. They are teaching the youngest of the children of Iraq to become religious fanatics like them. You can't bring democracy to people that don't want it or understand it

As I said before we must educate the Iraqi people to actually succeed in the war. Education is the major component to the US leaving Iraq a better place. Until we are able to educate the people that there is more to life than the just a gun and one religon. Trust will only be gained as we educate and teach them how to take care of themselves within their own society.

The insurgents will win the trust and minds of the people by educating them to be radical moslems if we are not in the schools to counter their propoganda. That is exactly what the insurgents are doing by being in the schools handing out their propaganda and indoctrinating the children in to religous fanaticism within a terror controlled society.

The way to win the war is to win control of the hearts and minds of the people in Iraq by educating and changing their century old system of government and religion. We must be able to show the people how it will benefit them to change. Education to support a better life style and provide basic services to support a better life is one of the basic building blocks of change in society. Without this a victory will only be short term at best as Iraq will just revert to their century old traditions and religous beliefs as soon as we leave.

In the end only the people of Iraq can control their future destiny. We can help guide them now by education and promoting change or we can let someone else (the radicals and insurgents) do what we should be doing to win this war.