The saddest thing is that the "war on terror" could be over by now.

[kentuck]

There really was no need to go into Iraq. If we had continued our mission in Afghanistan, chances are we would have captured Osama bin Laden by now. At the time of 9/11, he was the hero and mastermind of the Arab underworld. If he had been captured, it would have cut off the head of terrorism. Few glory fighters for Allah would have ventured out to do anything so dramatic as 9/11 for some time. Osama would only have been a person that stories were told about, rather than still the leader of an ever-increasing number of terrorists around the world.

But, by diverting our attention and resources to Iraq and Saddam Hussein, we have created more terrorists than Osama could ever have imagined. This Administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy. They created a war on terror where none really existed. It's probably safe to say that insurgents in Iraq are probably made up Iranians, Syrians, Jordanians, Saudis, Egyptians, even Afghans. This may go down as one of the most colossal military blunders in modern history.

[madeline_con]

1. "... insurgents in Iraq ..."

My wager is on the "insurgents" being Iraqis who don't want an occupying force in their country.

The word "insurgent" makes them look like they don't belong, so that wholesale destruction of entire towns can be rationalized by war-mongering neocons and their flocks of ignorant backers.

But that's just me.

[kentuck]

4. Yes, the reports are that "insurgents" from other countries is minuscule.

Most of the so-called "insurgents" are Iraqis fighting for their country.

[Flabbergasted]

2. We could have just simply removed our bases for S.A. and provided

equal aid in Israel and left Afghanistan alone. It's not our business to be over there!

[cassiepriam]

3. Think what we could have done with all the money saved.

Education, health care, alternative sources of fuel.