I don't think it's a matter of who showed up in Iraq first. I think it's more a matter of fact that these so-called "freedom" fighters have experienced a blooming of their afforts under our watch. I have been critical from day one, but have never assumed there weren't already these elements present within Iraq until we showed up. I think very few people literally believe that. I think most people recognize the magnet we have generated by simply allowing ourselves to fall into reach of these poor bastards who think sending their little brothers off to die for the sake of killing random people will affect a positive change. I think that with this recognition comes a profound moral crisis in most people, particularly when you look at how popular the war was in the beginning. "For the greater good" is an easy concept to act upon, but the reality is far more complex than that and I think much of the criticism we see today stems from that dawning reality.

So, no, we didn't start the fire. We simply fanned the flames and claimed the resultant prairy fire was progress...even when it burned further than implied. My resentment comes down to this: if they knew it was going to be such a tough job, why did they send mixed messages by having morons like Cheney tossing out inane rhetoric about being greeted as liberators? I think the political machine that was Bush's strength was in fact his ultimate weakness. Sure they were great advertizers! Too bad that's just about all they've been very good at.

The Bushies talked about it like it was WWII, but fought it like Grenada. (I didn't make that up; someone else on this Fray did.)

I am less concerned morally about fighting in Iraq against Saddam's horrid regime which was a festering sore for America, the West and the region, as I am that we fought it so jaw-droppingly incompetently.

Bush was in thrall to his ideas, his desires, his aims, and could not hear the other side of the coin, the cautionaries and doubters. Both are critical to executing any big plan, let alone a war and occupation.

Who proofed this article? al-QAEDA

I'm wondering, to all the people whom say "we" as in, what "we are doing in iraq" do you mean to imply you actually been there fighting, as our brave men have, or we as in, i have a mouse in my pocket?

I would recommend the book "Globalized Islam" by, Olivier Roy. Before everyone who's seen about 100 hours of the same news broadcast by reporters and writers (with degrees in communication) start feeling they can make informed decisions and really understand nothing and have done absolutely no proper research. But God bless American sensationalism which has even permeated our news.

At least then people will have read a book- by a respect professor in the field we're discussing and not received their facts on culture from former talk show hosts getting "shot at!"

What really amazes me about this whole situation is that so many people don't seem to realize that 9-11 was a turning point in history - the world will never be as it was before a group of people not belonging to any specific country took it upon themselves to commit the crimes they did. I don't think the crimes were so much against America, as much as the entire civilized world (hint: "World Trade Center"). The only reason the attacks on the Pentagon and the White House were included is this is the country where the World Trade Center was located. My belief is that no matter what happens in Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other country, we will be fighting (or submitting) to these thugs from now until the end of time. Any one who thinks they can be reasoned with is not paying much attention to what they want us to do....die or accept Islam. While many branches of religion have done this over the past several centuries, in this age, with the terrible machines of war available, this type of converting can't be allowed to remain uncontested. That's like the U.S. bombing every Muslim country back to the stone-age unless they convert to a multi-religion tolerant society.

As far as the current war in Iraq, the evidence presented to the President and the members of congress (both parties also) was determined to be sustantial enough to present the option of going to war to the U.N. who gave Saddam one "last chance" for the umpteenth time, to comply with yet another resolution, which he failed to do by resisting the attempts of the U.N. inspectors to confirm the existence of, or more importantly the absence of, the WMD's and the programs he was using to build more. I'm glad that soldiers are going over seas to take this fight to the enemies of freedom. While I always hope that none will be harmed, I'd rather be fighting them there than the civilian losses here should they attack us on our soil again - they didn't aim at the soldiers in this country - they aimed right for civilians - I dare anyone to deny this. Sure, they hit the Pentagon, but they didn't do squat to the miltary as a whole.

So wake up, people! We may be fighting them from our houses soon enough - let's let the soldiers do what they're trained to do, to stave off those days as long as we can.

Oh let me guess: nobody gets to have an opinion about a war unless we've actually been on the ground fighting it? Sort of like only women get to have an opinion about abortion?

"So wake up, people! We may be fighting them from our houses soon enough."

You weren't doing so badly until you resorted to this silliness. It's hard to imagine pitched battles with armed formations of Islamic extremists on US soil and our current campaign in Iraq doesn't have much effect against some small cell terrorist attack in the US. These would seem to be most effectively thwarted by preventative and investigative security efforts. But, I know there's not nearly enough romance and drama in that to satisfy the neocon fantasies.

hey, every idiot on the planet has an opinion, none of you have any answers....