A liberal group has posted a giant billboard in Times Square calculating the up-to-the-second cost of the Iraq war. It started at $134 billion and runs at $7.4 million an hour. The economic costs are staggering. But the sign is a bit crass. Does anyone believe these are the real costs of the war? We are approaching the thousandth American serviceman killed in Iraq. Many more of America's best young men and women have been wounded or maimed. This investment of blood and treasure may be good for Iraqis, but, like a lot of my fellow countrymen, I fail to see how all of this served America's interests.

Why do you hate America?

heheh

Dan:
Today's Front Page Mag dot com has a good article titled "Why We Freed Iraq."

And, that article on Front Page was written by a French guy!

I was not one for going into Iraq in the first place. Based on what I had read, Saddam was not the threat that he was made out to be and there was not enough proof to justify making a major military commitment that could turn into (as it has) a logistical and financial quagmire.

That said, people smarter and better informed than I made the decision to go in so I supported my government’s decision.

Did we turn back Middle Eastern domination and a nuclear threat? As is turns out: No.

Past ideas, attitudes and reasons are clearer now and we know so much more.

But, we liberated a country, captured a brutal dictator and showed the World that we are still, hands down, the most powerful nation with the most serious and honorable intentions on the planet. Throwing a little fear into prospective aggressors is a pretty nice by-product as well.

However, now it’s time to leave. We can not nation build at the expense of our soldiers lives while trying to maintain a police state. The noble task is over and now it’s time for the Iraqi people to grow many sets and start to stand up for themselves.

Mike I appreciate the thought about letting the Iraqi people stand for themselves. It is about time. I would ask, however, if you are concerned that the US being seen overseas as a dominant, aggressive nation might hurt the US rather than help it.
Instead of putting fear into our enemies, the war may have convinced them that the only way to avoid being invaded by the United States is to aquire atomic weapons. Look at North Korea. This country has atomic weapons and is developing ICBM's. The Iraq war did not scare North Korea's leader, it caused him to work harder to assure he had the protection of atomic weapons. Your comment.

I am not an isolationist (although I would say that I am very Buchananesque in many ways), but I am very much concerned about the U.S. presence in other countries. However, my reasons are less about how we are perceived abroad but rather why and how we should be spreading our troops around.

As said, Iraq was a question mark for me but now that it’s said and done, I think our only course of action is to leave as soon as possible.

I personally believe that fear by others is our best deterrent. My experience has been that nice guys do indeed finish last and the nasties of the world are generally feared and respected. Don’t necessarily want the U.S. to be thought of as being nasty, but the fear and respect factors are essential to the security of this nation.

This is accomplished by having the biggest stick and this means military might and the means to use it and having the best nuclear deterrent capabilities.

I think I would agree that most third tier countries would love to establish a nuclear presence as a deterrent in much the same way most of the larger ‘First World’ nations have. Can foreign aggression and their need to protect themselves from it initiate or speed up a country’s need to acquire such weapons? Absolutely. But I don’t believe they would do this based on worrying about one particular aggressor nation or another.

Even if the U.S. didn’t exist, these countries would have plenty of their own incentive to arms themselves.

Let me remind you: the U.S. is not all bad and the World all good.

I must say that I agree with a lot of Buchanan's "isolationist" views. But if you really wanna good man on foriegn policy, its Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. This man has maintained the true conservative view of foriegn policy. That is that we gain more from trading and investing in countries than we do from invading them.

hahahahaha. Your a riot you really are. My point is that they are hell bent on world domination and that they're doing a better job than we are. So we had better emulate thier tactics if we want to survive.

If you think that that is "admiring" China then you should peobably go down to Waco and keep vigil over the Branch Dividan site, cuz your a right ring wacko.

If you were any kind of Conservative you'd realize that a nation must conserve its power for when it is truly in danger, and not liberally throw it around.

Once again you prove you're a bit nutty.

In many posts, you condemn the U.S. for what you perceive as imperistic behavior. Now you're saying that we should emulate China and learn how to do it better?

WOW!!