Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 09/01/06 2:05 pm:

Hello again, Wolverine:

>>>Now... imagine how much harder this would be if you had to fight both the Saddam cancer and the Ahmadinejad cancer AT THE SAME TIME. Boy, its a good thing we got rid of the Saddam cancer three years ago and can concentrate most of our resources on the Ahmadinejad cancer.<<<

Boy, oh boy, oh boy! I thought I was the one who was high…… I used names instead of country's. In my argument they’re interchangeable. In yours they’re not. Why? Because Saddam is in the slam, and then you prattle on as though that war is over. Huh???

In the real world, Saddam’s cancer has metastasized, and it is killing us. We can’t concentrate on sh*t! Let me have some of that stuff you’re smoking. It’s got to be better than mine.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 09/01/06 3:25 pm:
Actually, the insurgency in Iraq is the ingrown toenail. They aren't a real threat to the USA as a country, though they could cause us some pain. The USA will survive regardless of whether the Iraq insurgency is put down or not. They will be put down, but their effect on the USA is limited in any case, as long as they can't get their hands on WMDs.

By contrast, Saddam with WMDs WAS a threat to the survival of the USA, as is Ahmadinejad with nukes.

In truth though, you are right, the cancer has metastesized. But you have mis-identified the cancer and where it has metastisized to. The cancer is Islamofascism as a whole, and it has metastisized to Europe and to a lesser degree the USA. Saddam, OBL and Ahmadinejad are really just symptoms. The cancer was able to spread because we (the Western World) ignored the symptoms and allowed it to continue to grow without being cut out. First it took over the Middle East, then it metastisized to Africa, and then Europe and the Americas were infected.

So no, I don't think the operation (the war) is over. But we've gotten one concentration of the cancer (Saddam) and are ready to deal with the other concentrations (Ahmadinejad).

And I don't smoke. Asthma. I drink, though... single malt scotches mostly or high-end blended scotch, though I don't turn down a good wine or beer.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 09/03/06 8:12 am:
The problem is, because of the mistakes, support for an Iran invasion is non existent. THATS the problem.

It goes much deeper than that . Even if the war had turned out according to the most optimistic blueprints I think in truth America is still in denial of what we are up against. A good part of our country longs for the frivolity of the 1990s when the big concern was who was the President screwing around with. Senseless killing in other parts of the world was not of their concern;be it in Iran or Rhwanda . Ask most Americans and they are more interested in the photo-shopping of Kaity Couric's waist than the photo-shopping fraud by AP in Beirut.

Do you think that if our forces eventually off OBL that the Americans would continue to press jihadistan or would they say 'mission accomplished ',time to pack the gear ,go back to fortress America and party hearty !

There is more than enough evidence that we could've had bin-Laden on a number of occasions . Sandy Berger went into the national archives and stuffed documents down his pants trying to suppress that truth but there is too much evidence for it to be deniable (even though the Clintonoids still make a valiant attempt to deflect ).

But without a direct attack on the US ,the international and domestic support for the Afghan invasion would not have been there . It would be reading the same way ,initial success followed by a postwar quagmire...a war of choice not necessity . At least Bush knows that you have to pull the trigger to fire a shot.He was willing to make the attempt.

Simularily I am not sure the American people can be persuaded that Iran is the threat that you and I know it is. So what if they killed Americans ? ...it did not happen here but over there .