Comments (15) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   Ken Warren said, 27 days ago

   IRAQ? Oh Yeah that’s the war that Bush won, all we are doing now is cleaning out the closets before we head home. Relax our troops will be home as soon as all of the violence is over.

2. 

   oldlegodad said, 27 days ago

   They are with Al Quada help reverting to type before Sadam.

3. 

   dtroutma said, 27 days ago

   Under Saddam there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq, before Saddam there was no Al Qaeda, because we hadn’t set bin Laden up yet, in cooperation with Pakistan’s secret service.

4. 

   omQ R said, 27 days ago

   ^ Thanks dtroutma.
   …still they go on about Al-Qa’ida in Iraq before the invasion despite the irrefutable proof stating otherwise, the failures…total denial! Arghhh!
   They’re in Iraq because of the invasion!
   Dolts. :-|

5. 

   parkersinthehouse said, 27 days ago

   hey what are you guys doin up so early

6. 

   a.c.d said, 27 days ago

   ANandy, no, just plain no. Having a stable democracy may be helpful, only on the grounds that it is easier to work with a democracy because they are more like minded to our ways of running the show, but there is no evidence that the presence of democracies in the middle east are going to have a deterring effect on anyone. The only proven strategy is diplomacy, military cooperation and economic trade (think turkey, azerbaijan, saudi arabia, gulf states as a few examples).

7. 

   robbie said, 27 days ago

   this is a sad strip

8. 

   cdward said, 27 days ago

   So very sad. And you could add Afghanistan violence.

9. 

   tizzo said, 27 days ago

   acd,

   A stable democracy is a PREREQUISITE to diplomacy, military cooperation, and trade.

   The reason we did not have diplomacy with Iraq and Afghanistan before their respective invasions, and we don’t have it now with for example North Korea, is not because we don’t want to, or because we prefer things as they are, but because there is no such thing as diplomacy with such an entity. The concept itself does not exist.

10. 

    av8tor said, 26 days ago

    I think it would be better to leave afgan, come home and wait until the Taliban takes over..then go back and bomb them back to the stone age..no more blood and treasure from the USA..

11. 

    PlainBill said, 26 days ago

    Tizzy, no, that is WRONG. Perhaps it has escaped your attention, but many of ourtrading partners do not have a democratic form of government. To name two: Communist China, and Saudi Arabia.

    Consider the close ties the US has with Saudi Arabia; heck, Bush was on kissing terms with their Prince.

12. 

    dtroutma said, 26 days ago

    I just find it interesting that there is less blood shed in Iraq on an average day than our daily carnage on OUR highways. Actually, there is less death in Afghanistan, or Iraq, on average, than the daily toll in the U.S. to gun deaths.

    Maybe we should just consider war and terrorism “accidental” so we can totally ignore it, and do nothing about it?

13. 

    Ken Warren said, 26 days ago

    Yes! Bring our troops home and put them on the highways, no roadside bombs, but some god-awful roadside food.

    Of course, considering the state of our roads and highways after 8 years of neglect, it is hard to tell which is more dangerous our drivers or the roads we drive on?

14. 

    a.c.d said, 25 days ago

    Wow Tizzo, you are not only wrong about your theory of democracy being a prerequisit, but you are totally wrong about the diplomatic history of both iraq and afghanistan. I would do a little light reading before posting anything on the internet.

15. 

    M Henri Day said, 16 days ago

    Nick Anderson’s «point» here is absurd - it is the height of hypocrisy to start a war of aggression abroad (the «supreme international crime», according to the International Military Tribunal at Nürnberg) and then protest the occurrence of violence in the invaded country - or indeed, in one’s own….

    Henri