If the terrorist attacked Spain because they want Basque seperatism.Why did Spain pull out of Iraq as a result? You forgot London. Why did they attack there?

I believe the United States gets 2% of it's oil from Iraq. My number may be off by some but in any case it is a small amount of the oil we use. May point was that if we were after oil why pick on Iraq when we could pick on Saudi Arabia (Or Iran for if that makes you happier) which has more oil. Wouldn't that make more sense if we wanted to start a war over oil?

"When Saddam nationalised the oil fields in 1972 the U.S and U.K. lost billions of dollars in revenue and equipment. This war is about getting that back. "

If the above statement were true. Why not take it during the first Gulf War? A perfect opportunity then wouldn't you say? I'll help you out here. We didn't because the your accusation is false.

To say that we prematurely sent our troops into the field is ludicrous as I said above. What does that have to do with sanctions? Read my response to this question above. Don't feel like repeating myself again.

Money unaccounted for doesn't mean the US stole it. Besides this has nothing to do with our discussion.

"neo-con propoganda parrotted from right-wing talk show nitwits" Wasn't it you that posted in another place on this site that insults have no place here?

I NOTICED THAT YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTION. WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE???

"Are we better off now. Do I feel safer."

Of course not there is a war going on. Of course things will get worse during a war. The coalition forces have captured or killed many terrorists. In the end I believe the world will be a safer place. This is providing the liberals in the US don't succeed with their propaganda and force a pull out of Iraq before it is stabilized. However as you know, there are no guarantees. But the free world has to try. IMO.

# On the March 16, 2003, broadcast of CBS' Face the Nation, Cheney stated: "I think [the war will] go relatively quickly." When host Bob Schieffer pressed the vice president to offer a more precise estimate of how long the war would take, Cheney replied: "Weeks rather than months." On NBC's Meet the Press the same day, Cheney stated, "my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators [by the Iraqi people]."

# In a February 7, 2003, appearance at Aviano Air Base in Italy, Rumsfeld projected that the Iraq war "could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

# In a February 13, 2002, Washington Post op-ed, Ken Adelman, at the time a member of the Defense Policy Board, stated: "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps."

They're are dozens more; remembered by those of us who don't swallow every revisionist lie spewed by the cabal of criminals in this administration and their all too willing media accomplices.

Now your turn.

Cheney was talking about the initial war to take Iraq which I believe took weeks and not months. He doesn't say the hostilities will be over in weeks and we will have a democratic system set up. Nor did he say hostilities will end and we will be out of Iraq in weeks. So taking him out of context does not help with our discussion.