Read full story for latest details.

View the full article here.

So, in the end, who is responsible? Even you Bush supporters know the answer to that!

Certainly, the US appears to be greatly responsible for the Iraqi War.

But, to imply that the US would be solely responsible for any future terrorist action by Al Qaeda is to discount all the previous reasons why Al Qaeda has attacked US interests prior to the Iraqi War.

And, in the end, if one is to look at the reasons behind any possible future Al Qaeda from all viewpoints, all parties involved would at least be partly "responsible."

And who wonders that any of the Al-Qaeda terrorists are well-to-do people, like doctors, that would corrupt themselves to commit these heinous acts? The terrorists are mislead into thinking that Allah is with them when they do it. That's not what Allah wants them to do.

I agree to a certain extent. Unfortunately is is the US with a bug up its ass about Iraq, and because of that bug they have gained followers and strength. Not to mention 'testing' their methods on our troops. The truth will be evident when we finally do pull out. We are the leaders and the other ally groups over there are followers. Will they stay after we leave? Nope. We lead the way. Most of the blame goes to us. We brought Al Quada to Iraq. Period.
This whole thing is just another reason for withdrawal. Period. Clean up the Denatured Uranium we spread every where. Get out and then strengthen our borders, shipping inspections and defend our country, not occupy a country that had no Al Quada to start with.
The many mistakes in this war were this Administrations. Lets start admitting it, and correct it.

Oh, I'd say that it is much more accurate to say that Al Qaeda "followed" the US and her allies into Iraq rather than that the US "brought" Al Qaeda into Iraq.

Again, Al Qaeda must hold at least some responsibility for being in Iraq.

Well, in my opinion, giving Al Qaeda free reign in Iraq by withdrawing US troops (or other security forces) prematurely would be the equivalent of Bush not finishing the job in America's search for-and bringing to justice-OBL.

Moreover, a premature withdraw from Iraq would likely destabilize Iraq even more than it is already. And, Iraq-at least sections of Iraq-would very likely become a more permanent breeding ground for Al Qaeda...much like sections of Pakistan have become.

Surely, the Bush Administration has made mistakes regarding Iraq.

But, in my opinion, a premature withdrawal from Iraq could become a far greater long-term strategic mistake for the US than staying the course in Iraq.

I guess time will tell...

Well, its my opinion that Bush knew damn well there were no WMD, no Chemical weapons plants, no yellowcake deal and no Iraq-Al Quada connection before we went in. He knew damn well that going into a Muslim was going to bring the Muslim extremists in from neighboring countries. Bush announced we were going in months before we actually did. That is unheard of in all of history. Whats the reasons behind that move? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and we knew it. We went in there because Saddam wasn't sharing his oil. Pure and simple. Drawing the terrorists there was just a bonus. We brought the terrorist there and it was planned that way.
As for not pulling out, do you actually think we'll get Iraq under control, ever? We can't even straighten out Bagdad. All the 'progress' you hear about from the recent troop build up, well thats just the progress they say they're making in Bagdad. The whole damn country hates us for the Genocide on the installment plan we set up with Denatured Uranium. We have no plan to clean it up and ALL the people of Iraq know this. Bush has proven he doesn't give a shit about OUR evironment, never mind theirs. They are living the nightmare and our media and government cover it up. How can we actually expect the Iraqis to ever go with our program when they know in the back of there mind our main concern is the shipment of their oil and not really thier well being? We could stay another 20 years and still not have that country straightened out. Its time to get out of Iraq.

While it might be true that the Bush Administration appeared to create false WMD data and misinterpreted actual WMD data regarding Iraq prior to the invasion of 2003, it is certainly true that Saddam wasn't exactly cooperating with the UN prior to the invasion of 2003...for whatever set of reasons.

And, since oil would be worthless unless it is sold to whomever, and since oil is essentially sold in an open market, I find it hard to believe that the Bush Administration would invade Iraq because "Saddam wasn't sharing his oil." In other words, Saddam could have just as well have sold all of his oil to countries other than the US and this action wouldn't have effected the US, per say, because the US would then have to just purchase that same Iraqi oil from those other countries. In fact, if Saddam truly wished to hurt the US by not selling the US any oil, he would have had to curtail the sale of all of his oil in order to hurt the US...which would have hurt his own country more so than the US. So, in my opinion, your conclusion that the Bush Administration invaded Iraq because "Saddam wasn't sharing his oil" is baseless.

(Besides, the US was importing only a very small percentage of oil from Iraq to begin with prior to and after the Iraqi invasion of 2003.)

In my opinion, the US government aught to be responsible for cleaning up Iraq regarding spent depleted uranium munitions. I definitely agree with you on that issue.

But, regarding leaving-and giving-Iraq to her enemies, Al Qaeda has other objectives inside Iraq besides attacking US troops and US interests.

Why do you think Al Qaeda has supported the Taliban and has been supported by the Taliban...and other groups with similar Islamofascist goals?

(There is really a war of ideologies going on in the Middle East...and elsewhere...rather than some war about oil.)

I saw in one of the internet papers yesterday that the U.S. want to create a 3-state Iraq?

Like letting the Sunnis, Shiites, and the Kurds having their own state?

That sounds like what the USA has right now, 50 states (48 in the contigious USA).

And for all the violence inside Iraq, I doubt anything like a three-state Iraq will happen, since the two major factions will continue to kill each other.

Well what your saying isn't exactly true. It has to do with the domination in the world market of the U.S. dollar.
Please see the followig quote.

In 1971, as it became clearer and clearer that the U.S Government would not be able to buy back its dollars in gold, it made in 1972-73 an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the power of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars for its oil. The rest of OPEC was to follow suit and also accept only dollars. Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil. Because the world needed ever increasing quantities of oil at ever increasing oil prices, the world�s demand for dollars could only increase. Even though dollars could no longer be exchanged for gold, they were now exchangeable for oil.

The economic essence of this arrangement was that the dollar was now backed by oil. As long as that was the case, the world had to accumulate increasing amounts of dollars, because they needed those dollars to buy oil. As long as the dollar was the only acceptable payment for oil, its dominance in the world was assured, and the American Empire could continue to tax the rest of the world. If, for any reason, the dollar lost its oil backing, the American Empire would cease to exist. Thus, Imperial survival dictated that oil be sold only for dollars. It also dictated that oil reserves were spread around various sovereign states that weren�t strong enough, politically or militarily, to demand payment for oil in something else. If someone demanded a different payment, he had to be convinced, either by political pressure or military means, to change his mind.

The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein in 2000. At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change his mind. When other countries, like Iran, wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was in order. Bush�s Shock-and-Awe in Iraq was not about Saddam�s nuclear capabilities, about defending human rights, about spreading democracy, or even about seizing oil fields; it was about defending the dollar, ergo the American Empire. It was about setting an example that anyone who demanded payment in currencies other than U.S. Dollars would be likewise punished.
The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse | EnergyBulletin.net | Peak Oil News Clearinghouse



I'm with you here but.... the govenment refuses to admit to the hazard, and clean up the DU. This makes every Iraq hate us, no matter what each say.

Just who are her enemies we'd be giving Iraq to? The fighting will go on for years and years no matter how long we stay there. We don't have the troops to actually fix Iraq.
Its time to admit we fucked up. Pure and simple, we can't fix Iraq with military action.
We need to pull out slowly, admit the DU is killing people everyday and then clean it up. I would think we should be training Iraqis to do this becasue if we do it we'll be attacked.
We're in the wrong here and should make an attempt to fix it. The Iraqis are fed up with our double talk and probably won't trust us until someone with commpasion is running our country. Bush fucked it up for a peaceful solution in Iraq and his military plan there is shit. We need to pull our troops, admit to the mistakes we made and help Iraq fix the mess their country is in, in that order. It is the right thng to do as compassionae Americans.