I think you raise a good question about the so called war on terror. How can you define victory using such a term? Now we either have to believe that our leaders who crafted this term are not very smart, or they are smart - like a fox. Using an ambiguous tern like “war on terror” has no definable point of victory and that allows the war to continue indefinitely. Which I believe is the deliberate point.

The “war on terror” is a marketing term that stuck. We as a people were sold that and asked not to question. We trusted our fearless “Christian” leader because we really wanted to believe and trust that we in fact had a fearless, Christian leader. We wanted to be good sheep. Sheep tend to be stupid.

If we were really in a war, the Constitution requires us to declare war. We won’t. We tend to like being in a continual state of war. Still haven’t rescinded our declaration of war against North Korea. Bush says he is waiting for them to dismantle their nuclear program. What was the excuse in the 50’s or 60’s or 70’s or 80’s?

No, the war on terror is a convenient term, ambiguous by design to give us a strong base in the Middle East. Specifically Iraq. The reason has nothing to do with the twin towers. It has everything to do with oil. Not surprisingly.

We don’t really care what happens to the poor people of Iraq if we just pull out. That simply is not true. It provides humanitarian cover or justification for the real reason. You see, if we pull out of Iraq, Iran will fill that void so quick, your head will spin. If they take over they will be in control of a huge part of the Arabian peninsula and the other Arab countries who are more moderate than radical Iran will find themselves in line to be taken over. They don’t want that. Neither do we.

If Iran takes over effective control of Iraq and ultimately the Arabian peninsula with their brand of radical Islam, which most certainly would happen, then we would truly be at the mercy of a political / religous power for much of our oil who consider America to be the great Satan. The havoc they could create to the US economy, or the world economy would be immediate and devastating. That is why we are at war.

It is not about freedom for Iraqi children. It is not about avenging 9/11. It is and always has been about economic issues related to the control of oil. Our government, our fearless Christian leader, does not have the character to tell the truth about this. (If they will lie about why our sons and daughters are being spent in this war, what else will they lie about?)

Just for the record, I had dinner with one of the top tier candidates for the republican nomination about a year ago and he told me in no uncertain terms that he believed it was about oil, plain and simple. He hadn’t declared his candidacy yet. I wonder if he would tell us the truth?

By the way, who decides who is a top tier candidate? Ron Paul has won the highest popular vote in online voting for how candidates fair in debates, numerous times, yet he is never acknowledged as a contender and barely even as a candidate. I am sure they are quite concerned that a Ron Paul presidency might actually mean that the American people would learn the truth. Can’t have that!

I am not asserting that Ron Paul should be the next president, though we would be far better off with him than most. There are other good candidates like Governor Mike Huckabee and perhaps Fred Thompson but I digress. Gotta go.

Good question. I don’t know who really knows that answer, but here is my thought. The 9/11 attack didn’t originate from Iraq. Saddam surely hated the USA, and may have applauded the attack, but Iraq was not behind it. Therefore, I don’t see how our invading Iraq prevented another attack. Furthermore, there have been allegedly dozens of major attacks that have been thwarted. Thirdly, the USA was not the only country invading Iraq. Britain and Spain were part of the allied forces and they both got attacked on their shores since 9/11. So, no, I don’t think there is any correlation between us not being hit again and our invading Iraq. Furthermore, the fat lady hasn’t sung yet. This thing isn’t over. The enemy is very, very patient and bides their time, taking years and years to plan significant attacks. I wouldn’t let out guard down just yet. Blessings.

Do you see any correlation between the fact that we’ve invaded Iraq, and we have not had another attack on the United States since then? Is that just a coincidence, or is there a direct correlation between these two things?