Isn't there a site you can cite other than antiwar.com?

I think what is being forgotten with the war is that once the Hussein regime was removed (I think that was Bush's main goal) and a democratic government was in place, our real responsibility is over. I don't see how the U.S. is responsible for a civil war in Iraq. The people are free and then they choose to kill each other. How is that our problem? We only removed the obstacle to their present method of violence, we didn't cause it. They could have lived peacefully and we'd be out by now. Let's bring our troops home and let them have it their way, because no matter when we leave they will decide their own fate within their own country anyway. It should be now.

If the problems in Iraq were mainly the Iraqi's that would be OK for us to leave them to their own devices. (Though Clinton set the precedent in the Balkans that the US will intervene in civil wars.) However most of the money, arms and a considerable amount of the people stirring up trouble are from Iran and Syria.
It would be getting us out of the frying pan and into the fire if we left Iraq defenseless before these two terrorist states.
When Iran and Syria leave Iraq then we can but not before. Otherwise Iraq will end up being a puppet plaything of Iran and Syria like Lebanon is becoming again and was for many years.
The execution of the occupation and transition of authority has been botched. Political motivations allowed Fallujah to go on for far too long. The militias should have been disarmed before sovereignty was handed over (or immediately afterward).
An Iraq controlled by Iran and Syria is a nightmare for the US. Not even considering their terrorism and antagonism towards us. Giving them control over that much of the world's oil would be disastrous in of itself.

One point many Libertarians tend to overlook is that there are legitimate U.S. interests involved in both Iraq and the Middle East, more so now than when Sadaam was in power.

That is not to say that the Bushies have not made a mess of the situation, or that we do not need to rethink what we're doing or how we're doing it. But neither should we be blind to the malicious intent toward us of several of the key players in that region.

As recent history has shown, our geographic distance from the area does not make us immune to those who wish us harm.

If Amerika changed its foreign policy, the middle east wouldn't hate us. Politicians have used our money to make the situation worse and now they use our money to try to save face. No appropriation of money shall be made to support a standing army for more than two years. Time to disband it. The Founding Fathers knew that a standing army was a tool of tyrants.

Rebel- Other countries that do what you espouse have also been under attack from muslim extremists. They hate christianity, science, progress and prosperity. It wouldn't matter if the US was as isolationist as it was before WWII we would still be a target because we are the most progessed and prosperous nation on the earth. Not to mention that a majority of us are Christians. It would be nice if we left them alone they left us alone but it just isn't so. They attacked us on our soil. What other provocation do we need?

We should not have become involved in Iraq since this war had nothing to do with defense or retaliation.

Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the United States, and he was never aligned with Osama bin Laden. In fact, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein tried to kill each other on several occasions. bin Laden even approached the Saudi government in the early 1990s and offered them the services of his Afghan Arabs to repel a possible Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia. Instead, the Saudi monarchy chose to bring the U.S. military into the fight. bin Laden hated Hussein because the latter was an Arab nationalist. Hussein hated bin Laden because the latter was an Islamic fundamentalist. There is no way that these two were ever invovled with each other.

In addition, any "WMDs" that Saddam Hussein may have had before the 2003 invasion were so old and useless, that he didn't even think there was any point in using them.

--------------------------------------------------

There is outright chaos in Iraq. The fundamentalist Sunnis and Shias are killing each other in order to take control of the Iraqi government and establish a unitary state. Meanwhile, these two sides and the secular Sunnis and Shias are firing at U.S. military personnel because they want to repel all foreign troops out of Iraq. By adding more U.S. forces in the country, the U.S. government would be providing Iraqis with more walking targets to hit.

--------------------------------------------------

The elections in Iraq reveal that the population wants all foreign troops out. Currently, the 275-seat parliament includes 179 Islamic fundamentalists (mostly Shias, and some Sunnis). The other 96 consist of Iraqi nationalists (mainly socialists and communists), Kurdish separatists, other ethnic minorities that want their interests represented in parliament, and Iraqi federalists. The only thing that all of these groups (including the Islamic fundamentalists) have in common is that they want all foreign troops out of Iraq.

We need to leave ASAP.

--------------------------------------------------

An invasion of Iran would be an even bigger mistake. Iran is not a military, nor a nuclear, threat to the United States. In fact, the C.I.A. stated that Iran will not have the capability of building nuclear weapons or even having nuclear power for another 10 years.

Also, the country is quadrupled the size of Iraq's territory and nearly tripled the size of Iraq's population. In addition, the Iranian population does not want any foreign troops in their country. You can only guess how that will end.

Invasions of Lebanon and Syria would also be foolish and end in disaster.

--------------------------------------------------

The U.S. government needs to get their heads out of their collective behinds and establish a foreign policy that makes sense (i.e. - non-interventionist). Unfortunately, the leftists/liberals, neocons/religious right, and centrists will not introduce any such policy. Our best chance is to elect paleolibertarians and paleoconservatives to both houses of the U.S. Congress.

I get so tired of hearing "they hate us for our freedoms and our way of life." The good news is, if the US government continues to eliminate freedoms, they will love us again and we can all be one big happy family. So I guess that is one way to fight the war on terror.

John Brandimore -

People in the Middle East hate us because we have constantly intervened in the internal affairs of many Middle Eastern countries.

In 1953, The U.S. governemnt got invovled in the overthrow of Iran's Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh.

In 1967 and 1973, the U.S. government provided foreign aid to Israel in their wars against various Arab nations.

The U.S. government also has troops stationed in the Middle East and had sanctions on Iraq, which angered many in the region.

bin Laden actually hoped that we would invade Iraq. He was amazed when the U.S. miliatry was sent into Iraq. This is now his tool for recruiting new al-Qaeda members.

James Anderson Merritt -

Thank you. They hate us because of our constsnt meddling in the Middle East.

Our complicity in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine previous to the creation of the State of Israel also stirred up a lot of well earned hatred.

refer to:

http://wwww.palestineremembered.com

Our many interferences have gotten us into this situation, and only an absolute policy of non-interference in the affairs of the mideast will get us out. Actually a policy of non-interference anywhere would even be better.

The foreign relations of the United States should only be for one purpose. To obtain free trade world wide, but no force or coercision should be used in the process.

Why do they hate the Netherlands then? The dutch have not intervened in those things you mention. Still their country is under attack from these terrorists. Ditto the French who were the most vocal critics of our invasion of Iraq and have been rewarded with attacks and muslim rioting.
What genocide of the Palestinians? This is a fabrication by anti-Israel (and in many cases anti-semite) activists who can't stand that despite the British handing over the keys to the kingdom to the Arabs (the term palestinian wasn't used even by them yet) the Jews won.
Palestinians have attacked and provoked Israel at every opportunity and Israel for the most part has been restrained in their responses. Definitely more restrained then Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others who attack civilians as primary targets.
Saddam may not have helped UBL directly but he has funded terrorist organizations, provided training and other support (letting them use Iraq for training camps). 9/11 wasn't the first shot in this war it was just the loudest.
Taking care of one man who (since the invasion of Afghanistan) has been relegated to a lonely goat-herder in the mountains is not the way to prevent further 9/11's.
The countries that fund and promote terror must be dealt with harshly. Sometimes you need to use the "big stick" as Teddy Roosevelt would say. Or else it is useless.
Agreed that Bush has fouled things up in Iraq. The militia's should have been disarmed a long time ago (hard for a supporter of the 2nd amendment to say). And many other mistakes have been made.
An invasion of Iran is not prudent right now because of lack of troops. Also since the majority of the people their dislike their gov't. a CIA-aided revolution might be a better option.
I'm sorry that you are tired of hearing "they hate us for our way of life" but I am tired of hearing that it is OUR fault that these criminal thug murderers attacked us.
I never advocated an invasion of Iran, Syria or Lebanon. I merely pointed out that a lot of the so-called insurgents are foreigners imported to Iraq to stir up trouble there to benefit Syria and Iran.
Of course we have troops stationed in the Middle East and sanctions against Iraq. Remember the unprovoked aggresion against Kuwait? Saddam signed a cease-fire not a peace treaty at the end of Gulf War I. We had to have a presence to enforce the provisions of said cease-fire. Saddam had broken these provisions numerous times all throughout the 90's.
A retreat from the world stage is completely unrealistic and would encourage others to be even more aggressive.

A retreat from the world stage militarily will get us what we want. The only interest we have in the middle east is oil. If we leave Iraq and our bases in the region, they will still have a desire to sell us oil because it is their only form of income. The need to protect their oil production is actually a good incentive to get it together. They will fight it out, one side or the other will win, and then they will sell us their oil. The longer we stay there, the longer their inevitable civil war will last. Who cares if Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia fight over who gets to influence the Iraqi government, we can still buy the oil regardless of who wins. If they don't want to sell it to us, they can sell it to China and that will free up someone else's oil for us to buy. The price flunctuation will probably be even less than what was caused by us being there, which was considerable.

Of course, none of us want innocent Iraqis to get hurt while all this happens but they are getting hurt now, so the same holds true. Let them fight it out and get it over with quickly and without our intereference. Everyone here who said our foreign policy is partially to blame is correct. Everyone who said there are murderous thugs in the Middle East who want to harm us are also correct. But it will all end quicker when we are out. History teaches us that about every occupation that ever took place by any power over another.

John Brandimore -

First, the anti-semite label is used by neocons to try to discredit their opponents despite the fact that neocons have no credibility.

Second, explain why Islamic fundamentalists haev not attacked Switzerland. Believe me, it's much more than just their banking system. It has to do with the fact that Switzerland stays out of all conflicts that do not involve themselves.

Third, the only reasons that a big stick should be used is to repel invasions of, and attacks on our soil. And, to retaliate for attacks made on our soil.

Fourth, we never should have intervened in the war between Iraq and Kuwait. It did not involve us. Therefore, we should have stayed out of it.

I concur with Stan and Nick:

I am quite familiar with the anti-semitic epithats, having frequently on the receiving end of them. Neo-conservatives and Zionists cannot justify their actions and thus take the cheap and low road by appealing to ignorance and passion with slurs.

Everything that you will find on the Palestine Remembered website is absolute truth, it can be verified by both British and American sources. What you are fed by your Zionist infested government and your Zionist infested churches is nothing by Zionist propaganda, shrewdly packaged and spewn out by the likes of John Hagee and Pat Robertson and their minions. Israel is an illegal regime, illegally established and established on the blood and property of its Palestine and Arab inhabitants. The ethnic cleansing that took place was very real. Jewish people could have peacefully emigrated into an Arab Palestine and lived peacefully alongside their Islamic neighbors, much as Christians and Muslims live together in Lebanon. But instead they chose the route of terrorism and violence and today, they have reaped the reward of terrorism and violence.

We have overthrown Saddam, disproved WMD's, created a new Iraq government, and killed off some Al-Qaeda. In other words, we have done what we went there to do.

There is no reason why we should still be there. The time for the Iraq government to stand up and take responsibility for its country is now. The longer we let them argue and not reach and agreement, the longer our troops are in the line of fire. That's unsatisfactory.

However, complete withdrawal all in one moment does not show responsibility on our part. We need to leave but it should be done in increments. That's responsible.

Solution: Hold the new Iraq government accountable for their new country and set a deadline for complete military removal of our forces. The deadline should be one year from now and incremental removal of our forces should begin today. Each month, a few more thousand should be removed until we reach the one year deadline and have complete removal of our troops.

What the American people need to realize (besides our job being done there) is that leaving Iraq does not mean an end to the War on Terror. Terrorism is global. Focusing our assets and our tax dollars in one place that never attacked us is a complete waste our time, money, and security.

I agree we should withdraw all troops within the next year, Dennis, but providing the world with a date is a bad idea. Set a specific date within our government and make it clear to the Iraqi government (and our own military leadership) that they better hurry and get their act together because they have no idea what day we will be gone completely. We don't want them biding their time. Force them to act quickly by being prepared to withdraw the last troops at any time (within the next 12 months).

In my personal opinion, the best way to make the Iraqi government get moving is to completely pull U.S. military personnel out of Iraq in less than a year. Possibly, 9 months or sooner.

Mark B-
It is interesting to note that those who complain about the Anti-Semite label throw around the Zionist label like it's confetti.
That's OK though because I will wear it like a badge of honor.
You are actually using Lebanon as an example of Arab religious tolerance? Have you been paying any attention to what has been going on there for the last 20 years?
Syria and Iran through their puppets Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. have been assasinating any Christian leaders or even moderate muslims who stand in their way. Or maybe the example for Arab religious tolerance is in those countries.
Israel's occupation of that territory is legal by the fact that when all the Arab nations declared war on the Jews, Israel won the war. Despite being surrounded and extremely outnumbered.
You and I are not going to agree about this so it is pointless to argue about the supposed "Palestinian Genocide."
Just one question do you believe the Holocaust of Jews in Nazi Germany happened?

John Brandimore:

To answer your last question first, yes I do believe the holocaust happened in Europe, the evidence is undeniable. So no, I can't be labeled with the neo-nazi's and the ultra-fascist Iranians. Sorry, but that attempt to categorize me failed miserably.

As for Lebanon, what is happening is the result of repeated outside interference, of which Syria, Iraq, Iran and Israel and their attendent terrorist arms are fairly equally guilty. I remember when Muslims and Christians lived peacefully together. Foreign interferences and attacks created the disaster that is Lebanon today.

Israel did not create a "genocide" nor did I say they did, I specifically refered to the ethnic cleansing, accomplished mainly by Zionist terrorism and later by the force of Israel proper. However, thousands did die during Zionist terroristic attacks.

Also, the Arab armies did not invade the Jewish mandated areas of Palestine in the 1948 war. Rather they entered the Palestinian areas to try to protect Palestinians from attacks by Zionist militias. Zionist's used this as a pretense to engage in war. The story that the arabs initiated the war of 1948 is probably one of the biggest lies in history.

I agree that we will never agree on this. So be it. You state you wear the Zionist label proudly. I will end by stating that I wear the anti-zionist label equally as proudly.

Remember, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are two different philosophies.

Anti-Zionism only involves opposition to the existence of the state of Israel.

Anti-Semitism involves hatred of the Jews.

There are no anti-Semites on here.

I was not attempting to label anybody. It is just that most "Anti-Zionists" that I have known are also Holocaust deniers.
I agree that the problem in Lebanon is foreign intervention. I would probably weigh more of the guilt in favor of Iran/Syria than Israel than you would.
The term "palestinian" was invented after the war that established the state of Israel (I will leave the debate over who started it for another time). They are Arabs who live in the area the British called Palestine (governed under mandate under the Treaty of Versailles).
The British were not very friendly to the idea of a Jewish state and handed over as much of the then existing military hardware as possible to the Arabs.
The "Palestinians" were of Arab descent and thought of themselves as Arabs until the 1948 war. Then, for political propaganda reasons, called themselves a separate name to make it seem as if they were robbed of their homeland.
I don't think the state of Israel deserves to exist because they once owned the land 1,000's of years ago. Whoever started it, they won the war.
I have seen little evidence that they have done what their enemies are doing. Granted in a military attack some civilians and civilian structures are killed or destroyed. This happens in every war.
However, the primary targets of Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc. are civilians and civilian structures. If a person can't see the moral difference, I don't know what I can say to them.
Consider, if I have been brainwashed by "Zionist Propaganda," is it possible that your website (palestineremembered.com) is Palestinian (Arab) propaganda?

As far as I can tell, there are three possible outcomes in the Israeli/Palestinian war. (Conflict is a BS term so people won't admit they are at war.)

A) Israelis and Palestinians live together as one country with freedom and proportional representation for their government.

B) Two separate countries emerge with clear polictical borders.

C) Annihilation, for one or both sides.

Sadly, I feel C will be the end result here because both sides are completely irrational. They both want the same land and the other must die for them to be satisfied. Why the U.S. is involved is beyond me. We have no business deciding the fate of others.