Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from murasaki Sunday, April 06, 2008 - 17:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Just thot I'd mention that it's not just a matter of who's most likely to stop the war quicker, it's a matter of who can win the election against McCain. In a way I hope I am wrong, but it seems to me that Obama has the most polarizing ticket. The US has a huge "right-wing" influence on the voting process, whether they are the majority or not, how do you think Bush got into office twice? Seems to me that the voting process needs to be fully revamped to reflect true democratic process. Either way, I sincerely hope one of the democrats wins, it would be so cool. ;) (reply to this comment)

from Baxter Saturday, April 05, 2008 - 09:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Your reference to 'the war' is rather vague. If you're referring to the so-called 'war on terror', it's rather redundant, since a war that can never be initiated can never begin, let alone end (how do you fight a war on a state of mind, etc., etc.). If you're referring to the war in Iraq, stopping would just be worse than irresponsible; in fact getting out is what they're planning to do much sooner than they bloody should - in fact what they should be doing is changing tactics, as painful as that might be. As for Afghanistan, that war is actually the best prospect for success (yes, victory -of sorts- in the land where lasting victory has never been secured). If NATO gets out of Afghanistan, then we SHOULD have genuine cause to be indignant. Military success in Afghanistan might actually be one of the most crucial campaingn on terms of global stability since WW2. It's so blatantly true that the French are showing that they are willing to give up their vaunted independence from NATO and the rest of Europe, (in fact the world) to re-deploy there against the popular opinion of much of their citizenry (of course there is compromise; they're unlikely to be too close to the fighting). All in all, 'Stop the War' is becoming an annoying chant that I frankly find ill-considered and bordering on ignorant; 'take responsibility for your actions' or 'clean up your own damn mess' makes a much better indictment of US foreign policy than 'stop the war'! (reply to this comment)

from blog... Friday, April 04, 2008 - 13:28 (Agree/Disagree?) http://smokingmirrors.blogspot.com/2008/04/good-guys-dance-while-beat-goes-on.html (reply to this comment)

From dupletereo Friday, April 04, 2008, 14:51 (Agree/Disagree?) Very interesting. Who knows what really happened? I do know that the main excuse for invading Iraq wasn't there and nothing happened. Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 exposes many disturbing facts. A story aired in Brazil recently showed US soldiers carrying their dishes full, I mean really full of food in their incredibly generous cafeteria while people outside were struggling to buy the most basic food items. How can they respect them? The whole thing is indecent and if there was nothing to gain I am sure US troops would not be there.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, April 04, 2008, 15:53 (Agree/Disagree?) ... and would you want to have US troops there if there was nothing to gain?(reply to this comment)

From dupletereo Friday, April 04, 2008, 16:59 (Agree/Disagree?) What I mean is that the invasion of Iraq was based on profit and not on the lies that were used to send troops there. The US supported and armed Saddam Hussein when it was within its interest to do so, even though he was a terrible dictator. The US is quick to turn its back on former "allies" according to its interests or to defend tyrants in the name of "democracy", as it did in Vietnam. (reply to this comment)

From just another perspective Friday, April 04, 2008, 20:36 (Agree/Disagree?) What reason was used to persuade the US congress to send the USA into Iraq is rather irrelevant. What should be relevant to the people of the USA should be whether being in Iraq is in the best interests of the USA. Was it in the best interests of the USA to go in to begin with? It probably was in the best interests of the USA to get rid of Saddam Hussein. It probably is in the best interests of the USA to have a puppet regime right next to Iran. Throwing in the bulk of the military was probably not the best way to go about achieving these agendas. It probably was however, in the best interests of certain business sectors. The rest of everybody else failed to prevent that, so nobody has anybody to blame but themselves. Kudos to those who were able to manipulate the giant to their benefit. Job well done. Now, if a continued presence in Iraq is detrimental to the interests of the USA, then retreat is the obvious answer. You must however, consider the consequences of a hasty retreat. My quick guess would be increased Iranian and Russian military influence, massive Chinese economic influence, and a Iranian backed muslim government. I doubt there would be much possibility of the country splitting in two ala Pakistan-India as the Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis would all fight tooth and nail for the oil-rich south. Turkey would hate the USA. Europe would also hate the USA. In any case, retreating now is not likely to create a US ally nation on this piece of oil-rich land. So fuck the moral issues or the why you went in. The only correct answer is the answer which leaves a strong US influence in Iraq. At this point, you haven't come up with an option aside from stick to it. As far as the rest of the world is concerned the answer is probably thus. Better US blood than ours. We don't want an Iranian puppet there, we don't want a Russian puppet there, we don't want a hardline Islamic government there, and we don't want a independent Kurdish state. So let the US stay there. We might offer you a few token soldiers, but you deal with the mess. And I'm just talking out of my ass, because I've got nothing better to do. la la la, la di da(reply to this comment)

From Baxter Saturday, April 05, 2008, 09:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Certainly from the American perspective, this is well-considered and a fair opinion. And better the US power sphere ANY DAY than China, Russia or Iran. (reply to this comment)

from I Dig the Wig '08! Thursday, April 03, 2008 - 17:31 (Agree/Disagree?) I have personaly been opposed to the Iraq War since day one, so have many of the other SGA's. There are also a number of SGA's who support the war. This is a WEB site, not a organization. Vote for, or against whatever you want. My endorsement for President is right here: http://www.digthewig08.com/ (reply to this comment)

From dupletereo Thursday, April 03, 2008, 17:38 (Agree/Disagree?) You are right I dig the wig, this is not a place to address political issues. Thank you. I enjoyed the link. (reply to this comment)

from Tester Thursday, April 03, 2008 - 15:20 (Agree/Disagree?) What an IDIOT! (reply to this comment)

From dupletereo Thursday, April 03, 2008, 15:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Thank you, you must be very smart I can see.(reply to this comment)

from cheeks Thursday, April 03, 2008 - 13:18 (Agree/Disagree?) While Obama may speak well I believe he has too may chickens in too many pots. I also don't like his preacher. I am of the opinion that if you don't like or agree with what is being said you leave. That's what we did. You don't stay and give money. We need to look a lot closer and not just let our ears be tickled. (reply to this comment)

From dupletereo Thursday, April 03, 2008, 13:26 (Agree/Disagree?) I would support him because he seems to be the only one who would remove US troops from Iraq. Do you think he can or will do it?(reply to this comment)

From cheeks Saturday, April 05, 2008, 11:11 (Agree/Disagree?) It is not a matter of will he it is a matter of can he, and can he do it safely without endangering the troops that are left behind. While I may never agree with the war I whole heartedly support the troops that are on the ground out there and risking everything for what they believe in. (reply to this comment)

from One Who Knows... Thursday, April 03, 2008 - 12:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Lier is a city in Belgium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lier,_Belgium (reply to this comment)