[jims69camaro]

about the only comparison i can find between WWII and desert debacle is the number of dead people after a sneak attack by the enemy. 3000 in each instance. sad-ham and his sons may not have directly attacked the US, but they were out of control and could be considered enemies of the US since they liked to invade kuwait so much, and kuwait (since desert shield) had been one of our allies.

we should have attacked our real enemy in the M.E., that being saudi arabia. those sneaks in sheets have been funding al qaeda and the taliban for a long time, long enough that al qaeda and osama bin hiding had enough cash to sponsor the 20 or so soldiers they used to attack the money center of the US: wall street. it's easy to be misled and say there was a connection between the two: iraq and al qaeda, but i see it a lot simpler than that. we goofed by invading iraq before we had osama - he's been hiding in afghanistan and pakistan since he led the attack on US, not iraq.

i get my news from the internet, btw, from as many sources as i can find so i am not getting one tainted view. i remember saying way back when that we would find out who our true enemies were once we started stomping around over there, namely, saudi arabia. we can't just trump up some charges and head into their country like we could with iraq, though, so i wonder how this whole mess is going to be resolved. the war on terror was a complete debacle and has not netted us the desired result of peace in the M.E., nor osama's head.

the next president, in addition to having a mess on his hands with the war over there, is going to have to have strong foreign policy in order to route out our friends from our enemies and then make a statement. i don't know how that is going to unfold, but i know i don't envy who ever gets the reins from bush.