WRITER'S TAKE ON WAR IS WAY OFF BASE

Wow. I don't know where to begin with one writer's recent letter. ("Our soldiers are not fighting over oil.")

In a minute or less, I figured it out: This writer claims are grossly exaggerated.

1) Our invasion of Iraq was not to remove a blood-thirsty tyrant from power. It was to disarm
that same "blood-thirsty tyrant" of all his non-existent WMDs.

(Just as a historical footnote? We supported Saddam in the 80s. Gave him the very same weapons in his fight against Iran--which allowed him kill thousands of his own people later on. Who's the hypocrite now?)

2) The war on terror is global? So why are we still stuck in Iraq? Shouldn't we have already invaded the Philippines or some other South Asian country that has militant groups like Al-Qaeda?

Oh, that's right: None of these countries are sitting on a massive OIL RESERVE.

My bad!

So to say that our troops aren't fighting over oil is a bit of misnomer. They are fighting to protect oil contractors like Halliburton and KBR.

3) How will the terrorists follow our troops home? Of all the excuses given by Bush and his supporters about what would happen if we were to leave, this question remains unanswered.

4) Our troops aren't fighting to protect the lives of innocent Iraqis, Afghani, or anyone else.

Last I checked, they are struggling to control a country the size of California, and failing miserably at it after 5 long years.

5) Terrorists don't fundamentally hate us for our freedoms. They hate us because we keep sticking our noses where they don't belong.

I think this about covers it.

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX