[rmnunez]

We see things differently, it seems you do without objectivity.

You don't see on one side advocates for religious fundamentalism, regression and intolerance, with those for democracy, free trade and progress on the other.

Focusing on Iraq, do you think the Iraqis ever had a really free and fair election under Saddam? Do you think the Iraqis could have had an election if they demanded one marching in the streets of Baghdad under Saddam? Don't you think the Iraqis really weren't allowed to march without proper approval? How about the election and the diversity of the candidates, would you maintain the all-Tikritian team was more representative and inclusive too?

The benefits of free trade and progress are evident in rising standards of living and a quality of life in Iraq, but this is hampered by military occupation while fighting a civil war. The military and more civilian efforts in Iraq have not proceeded apace. We find booming trade in all sorts of luxury items, improved communications thanks to cell phones and the internet. Human Rights are now better recognized and the government doesn't repress like it used to. But unemployment allegedly exceeds 50% and the GNP isn't rising. Recently they inked some deals to allow foreign participation in the oil business, this should help with those standards of living -if the military can provide adequate security.

What fails is reconstruction and law enforcement, not military strategy. Military tactics, like torturing captives, are mistakes, law-enforcement tactics like setting up roadblocks merge with the military and whether mistaken or not depends on your regard for this as primarily a military or law enforcement problem.

And then we have the question of how to characterize the other side, whether pululated by advocates for religious fundamentalism, regression and intolerance. It sure seems that way, we find the insurgency in Iraq is made up of factions. There are some Shia, but its mostly Sunnis. Within these there are former military officers with assigned roles under pre-intervention plans for occupation, there are high-ranking Baathist institutional leaders, there are avowed Tikritian loyalists with claims of consanguinity. Would you dispute Iraqi military and political cadres as well as those in ethnic struggles are more religiously fundamentalist, regressive and intolerant? The foreign insurgents are avowedly religiously fundamentalist, regressive and intolerant, they affirm this in every explicit expression they've made.