Well I guess that’s really the point. It’s not one-or-the-other for anything in a perfect world - it’d be great if we could do everything. But the sad fact of the matter is our military is drawn thin, our National Guard and border guards (who are supposed to be HERE protecting us) are in Iraq, and even if we stop all domestic funding, I doubt we’d be able to afford this for much longer.

We’re spending money we do not have. The bill will be due one day and if it comes in the form of a depression, that’s a hell of a lot worse than anything terrorists could do. Plus, how pathetic would that be if we were lead to destroy ourselves because we were too terrified of terrorists?

Really, Alan, given the current circumstances and the current administration’s bungling and go it alone attitude, what global assistance are we likely to get?

And even if there were some countries that are willing, the Bush administration has made it clear through action and message it won’t accept it.

Ask yourself, why?

Bush t isn’t even allowing Iraq to participate in the reconstruction efforts–they have between a $35 and $60 billion budget surplus thanks to oil price spikes, but they aren’t allowed to do anything with it because with the cash comes control and Bush and his corporate cronies won’t allow it.

From the beginning of the “rebuilding”, from the no-bid contracts that ignored companies outside the US to the lucrative contracts for oil exploration that companies are winning from Iraq’s nominal government, this has always been about oil.

And while corporations get rich, the taxpayer is footing the bill.

This is what this administration has ALWAYS been about–corporate welfare (tax breaks for the wealthy, easing restrictions on corporations).

As soldiers from the lower and middle class and Iraqi people die (the former by the thousands and the latter by the tens of thousands) the corporate fat cats get richer.

I agree that securing our borders is not an either or, and I don’t know if Iraq can or even wants to take care of al Qeada themselves–but what purpose exactly does our being there serve? Seriously?

Are we stopping the spread of terrorism? No. Are we making life in Iraq better for anyone but the corporations who are reaping the benefits? Are we making ourselves safer? How?

The only argument people on the right seem to want to make now (arguement #13 I think?) is the one you allude to–if we clear it out and left it to the Iraqis would al Qeada return?

Arghh!

First, they (not you–I understand you are dealing with the situation “as is”) ignore the fact that al Qeada was never there in the first place….but OK, let’s look at the argument about leaving now which gives them some place to actually go and set up.

Now consider this, if Iraq didn’t exist, would that mean al Qeada would cease to exist? No. They would set up somewhere else. Keeping Iraq out of the hands of al Qeada is a ridiculous position. If al Qeada is such a concern, you stop worrying about the where they might set up and start concentrating on the who, what, and why.

Shall we invade every country in the world to prevent al Qeada from establishing a base of operations? Because that is the ultimate consequence of that line of thinking.

I don’t know if this administration was ever serious about the threat of terrorism, but instead have used it as a convenient reason for its other actions. Please note: I am not one of those who thinks the administration participated in or let 9/11 occur despite the evidence that there was a possibility of such an attack. I don’t think the administration took it seriously because, in all honesty, it seemed outside the realm of possibility.

It is was serious, we would have finished the job in Afghanistan.

Keeping al Qeada out of Iraq is just another in a long line of misdirection perpetrated by this administration.

When an athlete is negotiating a contract and says it is not about the money–it’s about the money. When the administration goes to war with 15 different reasons, but it’s not about the oil–it’s about the oil (and all that goes with it).

That is why we are there. That is why they want to stay there.

We have 2 choices as I see it - we can all think the Bush and company are simply stupid people - which they aren’t, by any standards. We could also look at the facts, and they are irrefutable.

The facts tell us an administration of Oil-men and women are anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian, anti-American (and always have been) performed admirably if their plan is insidious. They got Saddam out (because that was a loose end “41″ didn;t have a chance to tie off on), and found a place for all that “surveilance” equipment we use to have on Diego Garcia. THEY PARKED AN ARMY RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE EARTHS HOTTEST OF HOT SPOTS SINCE RECORDED HISTORY BEGAN. They presided over a tripling in petroleum prices. They gutted the middle class because they know a well educated, well fed middle class in the US is their worst enemy. They oversee what is shaping up to be one of the worst recessions (if not depression) this economy has seen in 60 years. They broke the government of the people. They murdered. They stole. They lied. And cloaked their dishonesty in patriotism and religion. Oh and lets not forget taking the national debt to over 9 trillion and bankrupting the country for generations.

If we can agree that those are the facts, what do they tell you we should do?

1) I don’t know that it’s an either/or when it comes to our borders. I’m also not convinced we can “secure our borders” without two well-defended walls and, even then, people sneak in via ship every day. Obviously border security is very important but it’s no cure all and we shouldn’t assume just pouring resources at the border will make us safer.

2) They may be able to take care of al Qeada themselves — but I’d like some more evidence of that before we leave. Look what happened in Mosul. We cleared it out, left it to the Iraqis but now we’ve had to go back in because the terrorists returned and the Iraqis were unable to keep the city secure.

3) The war’s economic costs are hurtful, that’s true. But again, it’s not an either/or. If we leave Iraq in such a state that it creates regional instability that could be quite costly for us (oil prices being the most obvious ill effect). Still, I don’t have a good answer on how we keep affording this. We’ll have to bring in more global assistance in solving Iraq.

Lets just assume that if we leave, it would become a terrorist sand-box. And suppose staying there does actually do some good in preventing Al Qaeda from setting up safe-havens anywhere new. I don’t agree that this would be true, but just for arguments sake…

1) Do you believe that’s more important than securing the borders to prevent them from getting in here? I’m really worried that their presence in Iraq is a diversion to keep us spread too thin to take care of our border problem.

2) The civilian body count is between 80,000 - 90,000 people. I would make the conservative estimation that that puts about 100,000 families in emotional turmoil far surpassing the general hell of life in Iraq as is. Many Iraqis, especially children, will not understand the situation and end up blaming us (or the “infidel”, as it were) for the death of a friend or loved one.

Granted, there will likely be many who would blame us for leaving them after messing everything up; but somehow I doubt they’ll be as angry if we’re not the ones pulling the triggers. Not to mention, there’s a certain humiliation in being wiped out by a plane, which is the usual way we end up killing women, children and other innocents.

Is indefinitely sowing the seeds of tomorrows terrorists worth preventing Al Qaeda, which is already stronger as a result, from establishing itself in a country that already (for the most part) rejects them? The biggest reason things are getting better is because the Iraqi people see us as the lesser of two evils - why wouldn’t they be able to take care of Al Qaeda themselves?

3) No empire ever fell from a physical or military threat. It’s always economics, from Rome to the Soviet Union. If keeping America safe is the goal, isn’t our economic security more important than our physical security? As much as I believe it’s important to fight terrorists… highways are still more dangerous.

It would appear that these criminals in the White House administration used 9-11 as an excuse to silence dissent in this country resulting from the theft of the 2000 election, and to go to war against “daddy’s” enemy. Steal an oil supply in the Middle East. Exercise an imperialistic land grabb by building 11 new military installations in Iraq. “Gut” the federal budget from having the ability to pay for real social programs that could make a difference. “Pay off” those good soldiers either out or still in the military and the Military Industrial Complex. Pass out billions of dollars to people who have no accountability to the tax payers. Gleefully gut our great military on another fruitless pursuit. Spread American fear distrust and hatred throughout the globe. Claim that if we don’t do all these things exactly as we are told the terrorists will get us.

Does it occur to anyone that everything I just wrote above is exactly what Bin Laden said would happen - so whose the terrorists now? I re-iterate the point I made some time ago - “Why are the only people to have been convicted of a crime in this whole story a couple of low level soldiers who were essentially following orders?” The real perpetrators are free, still in positions of power, and still flaunting our laws.