Because I'm not opposed to the war.

This is a ridiculous assertion, but it seems to be prevalent, and I'm not the only victim of this mind-warped meme.

Rand,

I think that more people would have sympathy for you if you weren't always trying to label anyone against the war as being a liberal or an American hating idiotarian.

~Jon

You beat me to the punch, Jon.

Nothing torques me off more than some jerk calling me unAmerican for thinking Bush is an ass.

Two things to remember: 1) never date another man's wife, and 2) never question another American's patriotism. There's some other stuff to remember, but I don't care about those here...

I don't do that. I just do that for people who are against the war for idiotic and non-factually-based reasons.

Nothing torques me off more than some jerk calling me unAmerican for thinking Bush is an ass.

That's an interesting non-sequitur. Can you cite an instance in which I've called someone un-American for any reason whatsoever?

Both you people must have been reading some other web site.

Which war?

A war against radical Islam? I support that war 100%

A war against secular Iraqi nationalists? I oppose that war.

Are they the same war? Right now, I'd say its hard to tell.

If by "secular Iraqi nationalists" you mean Ba'athists (that part of the world's latest version of Nazism), then you should be in favor of that war as well. They are both part of the much larger war, against the western values of pluralism and freedom.

The Ba'ath are nasty enough people but I oppose such a war for the same reason I believe it would have been foolish to fight against Joe Stalin in 1943. Now, if it were 1947. . . :-)

Back to Iraq. Iranian agents have thoroughly infiltrated the Iraqi Shia population. And that is why there was so little rebellion in the Shia regions during the first year of the occupation. Hezbollah was being quiet, building terror infrastructure.

The Kurds want their own state.

If we want to fight radical Islam doesn't that leaves the Sunni Ba'ath as the only horse for us to ride.

I'm sorry, Bill, even if I accepted your premises, that makes no sense at all.

"The Ba'ath are nasty enough people but I oppose such a war for the same reason I believe it would have been foolish to fight against Joe Stalin in 1943. Now, if it were 1947. . . :-)"

Saddam was our ally against bin Laden? What color is the sky in your world?

After Kuwait, Saddam wasn't our ally but he was our ally before 1990.

If that US ambassador back before Saddam invaded Kuwait had said bluntly, "Saddam, don't do it" then Iraq might today be a brutal, criminal secular regime more hated by bin Laden than the United States since US forces would never have gone to Saudi Arabia since Kuwait would never haev needed liberation.

Saddam is gone today and good riddance. But I believe bin Laden has shed no tears at Saddam's removal.

Now, how do we balance Shia and Ba'ath influence in the new Iraq, when the Ba'ath hate us for removing them from supremacy and the Shia are riddled with Iranian agents?

Saddam was never our ally, if that word has any useful meaning.

Ok, so not an "ally" then. What word would you prefer to use instead? Or were we backing the Iranians in the Iran/Iraq war?

We backed whichever side appeared to be losing at the time, in the hopes that neither would win.

That's just too funny Rand... Really!

Well, it wasn't intended to be--it was the policy.