OPEC can't and won't replace supply if Iran is attacked.

[buckman]

I'm not just talking time, and you know it. We are still in Korea,Vietnam,and Germany. We are involved in Afghanistan, heavily involved, maybe you experts can tell me the amount of involvment you are looking for. What's so interesting about Bin Laden not being caught yet. That idiot Bush pulling off another con lke 9/11?

[likwid]

Originally Posted by buckman

We are still in Korea,Vietnam,and Germany.

And none of those places have the JAM blowing people up for the hell of it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

I'm not just talking time, and you know it. We are still in Korea,Vietnam,and Germany. We are involved in Afghanistan, heavily involved, maybe you experts can tell me the amount of involvment you are looking for. What's so interesting about Bin Laden not being caught yet. That idiot Bush pulling off another con lke 9/11?

I don't think anyone, including Barak Obama, has any issue with the USA being heavily involved in the Middle East to protect our interests over the long haul and assert ourselves.

But to claim Bush made is clear to the American people that Iraq would be a long drawn out event is really intellectually dishonest. They made is painfully clear that this was a pretty straightforward mission which wasn't going to cost all that much. That the Iraqi people were basically just waiting for us to remove Saddam so they could get on with being our friends...

When the lack of planning started to be obvious, they kept clear from pragmatic policy in favor of election rhetoric, insisting we "stay the course" and steadfastly refusing to confront reality with reason.

Bush put the survival of the GOP ahead of our troops and their mission. History will not be kind to GWB.

-spence

[Rockport24]

ok, there are 32,000 troops in Afghanistan compared with about 150,000 in Iraq, I would say that's not as heavily involved