OK, again, the staunch dems like boxer are going to disagree with anything because only dems know the right answer..the same goes for the fox newscasters and all things Bush and Cheney.

The real issues are that of the Islamic middle east..by comparisson the Iraqis had it pretty good..as did the afghanis until the taliban rolled in, but we really haven't done anything there except give them some rice and powdered milk.

IMO, we should leave a limited force in Iraq...let their military handle it mostly from here and then roll straight the hell into Iran..where people really do want to be free, where the clerics are in charge and beginning to start ww3 ( and 9/11 didn't start ww3 for all the stupid neo-con pundits) ..we could stop ww3 before it starts and it will start unless we stop it soon. Iran will start it along with their allies. The peopl in Iran want freedom, but we didn't have the balls to go there we just struck Iraq because it was convenient.

And frankly, if you rolled into Iran then most of your Iraqi problems would be done with anyway because most of the perps are Iranian and/or Iranian trained and backed.

That is how you deliver freedom...you cannot forcibly deliver freedom to a country that is split in 4 regions anyway, because we forced them together to begin with (ie Iraq). Peace in the mideast starts with Iraq getting "true, real" elections...not what they've had...