Yes, exactly.

Perhaps not so much for directly securing the oil, but - like it or not - oil is the life blood of the INTERNATIONAL economy.

9/11 was an excuse to go to Iraq - I don't disagree with that. Hell, the citizens were motivated and, as Rahm Emmanual has said, no crisis should go to waste.

I'm sorry but I can stomach strong actions geared at keeping stability in the world economy.Justice and strategic interests are two different things.Really?

Do you really think that?

The region is no more or less stable than it was prior to Iraq. However, the difference is we now have 1000s of troops on the border of Iran, the most strategically dangerous nation in the world today.Your analysis of the situation is absurd, I'm sorry to say. By taking down Saddam and occupying the country, we've PREVENTED Iran from having the opportunity to seize the natural resources they so desperately covet.

Further more, Iraq was a secular nation - Iran is fundamentalist. We would have been hard pressed to gain ANY Middle Eastern foothold to launch an invasion of Iran due to the fact that the nation is based upon Islam. Iraq, on the other hand, was considered quite a nuisance and therefore gaining the necessary cooperation to invade was relatively easy.

In the end, however, we now have the capability to attack Iran directly, which is undoubtedly a great DETERRENT in the region, allowing for less bloodshed.Two different situations.

What you're suggesting is akin to the US not defending against an invasion because the FBI is working on a kidnapping case.

We've paid for a military capable of fighting 2 and a half wars - there's no reason that we can't focus on both, and anyone thinking that one distracts from the other in the physical sense is fooling themselves. Ultimately, the only real distraction is from the media - they hate having to track two conflicts.

The military, on the other hand, is BUILT to do so.I didn't say you were a liberal.

Oh, and by the way - I'm not a neocon. I'm conservative in some ways and liberal in others. However, I'm well-schooled in the functions of internation affairs.

But misguided assumptions are fairly common with you, I suppose, having read your discourse with August.You can't possibly believe that rubbish is in any way poignant or applicable...

Plenty of people agree with causes they don't directly support for many, many reasons - on both sides of the aisle, and in the middle.Then, like August said, you just have a chip on your shoulder.

I've never met someone so idiotic as to believe that agreement with an idea must be met with direct action. I highly doubt you actually believe that, and I suspect you either wrote that in jest, or really never thought about the people you loathe so greatly (which presents a whole different set of issues).

I mean seriously, can ANYONE be that foolish? The people "waving flags" and cheering are often running businesses that pay the taxes that allow for these evolutions to be executed. Or they are simply working and paying taxes. Or they are building the supplies we need.

I could go on forever. You really don't want to pursue that idea that you "loathe" anyone, if its based on such ignorance.What August said.

And seriously, what the HELL do you base that upon? Frankly, it seems like the mindless rhetoric of yet another drone who's only thought process is "this is bad", assigned to him by he who screams the loudest.

That is the type of person I loathe. I hope you're not that.

And strengthening Irans control of the oil does what exactly ?

Yes, but it was not in anyones strategic interests, apart from Irans.

Thats true, he stability hasn't changed much it is just that the balance has shifted in Irans favour.
:har::har::har::har::har::har:

You don't occupy the country , you have put a bunch of people who have been working with the Iranians for years in power. You helped the supreme council for islamic revolution do what they had been trying to do for decades.
errrrrr....Iran is shia , just like a lot of Iraq is, the rest of the nuts in the middle east thinks they are ungodly heretics who should be killed for contesting the true succession.
Under the terms of the agreement that allows American troops to remain in Iraq you cannot attack Iran from there.
The other facilities the US have in the Gulf all have conditions attached where their governments have said they will close them if America attacks Iran. All the gulf satates have declared that in the event of any attack all airspace will be closed to the US and territorial waters will be closed to both military and civilian shipping.
You made a claim about the importance of the area strategicly and for the world economy . But then completely ignore the reality of it.
America can do bugger all in the gulf, and the other states don't want america to try and do anything at all because they know how vital the flow of goods through the straight is.
But the real irony is that you write...
when the mad mullahs in Iran are laughing their heads off because they understand the situation America has put itself in

FWIW I still believe we were right in taking out Saddam. He was like a dagger poised to strike the second we turned our back. I firmly believe he would have tried to get revenge for Desert Storm just as soon as the opportunity presented itself.

Are you saying the war in Afghanistan is not a game? OMG, what about the war in Iraq, has it been REAL people dying there all this time? ZOMG!1

I agree, and the world is much better off with him gone.

It was yet another reason to support going into Iraq.

The risks emanating from Iraq today are very much more dangerous than that of Iraq in 2002. The "liberation" has turned the country into what it was claimed to be in 2003, but in fact was not: a breedingground and playground for religious extremists willing to use terror and violence.

To assume that Saddam would have started troubles again "if given the opportunity", is wild guessing at best, becasue his teeth had been drawn in 91, and that he would have been given "the opportunity" again is unfounded theory at best. Militarily Iraq simply was not capable to be a threat to it's neighbours anymore. Simply that.

The region today has seen balances been shifted massively in favour of strategic interests of Iran. Iran does not even need to invets much into it anymore. They can afford to just lay in wait.

Iraq'S administration and security apparartus is deeply corrupted, divided by stronger ethnic-religious tensions than just some years ago, a stable, basic democratic order exists as intentions written on some paper at best, secret police and torturing is rule of the day again like under Saddam, and not a few say the latter are even worse than before. The level of bloodshed the removal of Saddam has caused especially amongst the civilian population surpasses that of what Saddam would have done in these 6 years, or used to do before. The assessement of US military professionals who had written reports about the capabilities of Iraq's security apparatus - were devastating, so bad these analysts see things. I linked to that before.

What all this casino-like adventurism has been worth, will be judged when the occupation ends and the last major US contingent has left the country. THEN - and not one day before - we will learn whether there was at least something that was worth it, or not. I don't hold my breath.