Sounds like all the other liberals: they have great arguements (of course [not]...), but they don't have the words to express them [because they didn't have enough education to learn what the phrase, 'bad arguement' means].
In a related poll, 98% of all liberal anti-war activists don't know why we should go to war, except for, 'it's wrong' (So is world hunger, poverty, etc. And what are they doing about those?)

More at the half hour.

(Any way to get signitures on this? I want that on all my posts, but I have to type it out, too much for my lazy self)

Don't just start trashing liberals, mind you. Some of us are more hawkish than Rummy.

Back to the point of this post, you go Scott! The absence of logically cohesive arguments from the anti-war crowd is glaring. It's as if all they can do is recite mindless and meaningless slogans, acting like little kids rather than adults. They simply ignore the inconvenient facts that confront the sheer hypocrisy and illogic of their arguments. Talk about a Democratic faith - based initiative...

Logic,

They ARE kids despite being 50+.

Anyone who believes that war is avoidable, even after ALL Saddam has done needs to go back to school. Or stay in it...

More at the half hour.

Well, Paul, I don't think going back to school is going to help the cause of clear thinking.

I had this encounter over the weekend with some professors from U of Florida.

Excerpt:

"After a brief summary of his academic background (oh, it was quite a list of paper deeds), he addressed me in a barely disguised German accent: "I don't see how someone who can't read French and German newspapers can possibly be informed on this matter.'"

And by the way, anyone amused by mistaken understandings of "logic" will get a chuckle (or a tear, or maybe both) out of my exchange with one of these useful idiots.

I live in Europe and the above exhange is typical of European opinion. They feel that all Americans are uninformed. Even the British feel this way. Take away Tony Blair and the U.K. is exactly like France. Of course, through the internet we can read papers from all over the world. The news that appears in the U.K. is not different from that in the U.S. The translations that I have read of French and German papers provide no new information. This attitude prevails, however. You disagree with me, therefore you must be uninformed.

If Saddam were, say an ordinary citizen of a different country, he would have been put to death long ago. He is no different than say Charles Manson, but on a much larger scale. Just because he has an army, opresses hundreds of thousands of people, and calls himself President makes everything he did in the past ok? These anti-war people are the same people who would oppose the death penalty, yet move if a convicted murderer moved in next door.

Dear All :

We do not think that you are all uninformed. We think that a vast majority of you are gullible, ignorant, childish and brainwashed. ;)

We have the impression that Life for you is Black and White, Good and Evil. That is in our opinion a ridiculously oversimplified view of reality.

Typical comment from a European (Brice). You may think that Americans are uninformed, but we Americans think Europeans are pansies. Maybe we shouldn't of bailed Europe out of WWII--arrogant [weasels]. We don't need any of you for this war.

in other news...

liberal organizers of the virtual march on washington plan to organize a virtual virtual march on the capital. the plan consists of sending email spam to all of the organization's support in order to persuade them to, "think mean thoughts at washington dc during the lunch hours of twelve to two pm on march fifth"

Dear All :

"We do not think that you are all uninformed. We think that a vast majority of you are gullible, ignorant, childish and brainwashed. ;)

We have the impression that Life for you is Black and White, Good and Evil. That is in our opinion a ridiculously oversimplified view of reality."--posted by Frenchman

And they call us arrogant!
Because we don't believe in turning our backs after 12 freaking years of attempts to disarm this freak, we are childish, gullible, and brainwashed.

How come it never occurs to these snooty S.O.B.s that they might be brain-washed by the socialist crap that is pushed down their throats?

What is wrong with believing that their are evil people in the world?

Why can't you morally equivocating fucks just once stand up against evil instead of pulling your puds while people are murdered, tortured, and maimed?

Wouldn't happen to be those very lucrative oil contracts would it?
Of course not... zee French need no oil from zee Middle East! Mon Dieu! Where is my wine?
Assholes.

Just sit back and watch while real human beings do a job that would have been done in 1991 if not for candy-asses like you and your countrymen in the UN.

Of course, once we do something we are Imperialist Pigs wanting to run the world. We are called Nazis, etc.

If we just let things play out, then we are selfish and self-centered and we don't care about "the suffering of people" around the world.

Jesus. We can't win with these morons.
If it were up to me, we would bring all our soldiers home to guard the borders so they could be closer to their families and spend their money at AMERICAN businesses. I would cut off the fire hydrant of dollars that keeps these shit-hole countries afloat, and let them fight it out between one another.

With the aid money and military money we save, we can develop our own sources of energy.

We could send the UN where it is most loved (France or Germany maybe?), and save some more money there.

Trade would be free, but the trough would be closed for all the losers who like to suck our money while spitting on us and burning our flags as they dance like animals in the street.

Would it be better then, Frenchman, when we allow these toss-pot countries to go back to grubbing in the dirt the way they did before we financed everything?

Would you be satisfied if we just closed up and said "piss off" to everyone?

Oh, that wouldn't be good... Because you would be speaking German, wouldn't you?

Phew...
I feel much better.

Angry American,
I think you misunderstood my post. I am an American living in Europe and I disagree with the way that Europeans stereotype Americans. You, however, are reinforcing their viewpoint.

Frenchman,
Saddam Hussein routinely uses torture and rape to maintain power. He has used chemical weapons numerous times and kills anyone who disagrees with him. His crimes are so numerous and well-known that there is no need to list them here. He is evil. There is no gray area. If you don't call him evil then it is you who are gullible ignorant, childish and brainwashed.

You can continue to endlessly debate philosophy and talk about how there is really no such thing as good or evil and sit around and drink your wine and smoke your cigarretes. We prefer to solve problems. When we see injustice, we try to stop it. While you debated about whether or not Milosevic was evil, thousands died. When we finally tired of your debate. We took the lead and stopped the killing.

We don't care if you help us solve this problem or not. Just get the F--k out of the way

That's a right on Mr. Ott! Your ScrappleFace sandpaper took their talking points down to a smooth nub.

To A Frenchman (I swear, you are my favorite):

Yes, Americans are frequently brainwashed. In fact, we often wash other parts of our body, take showers and baths quite liberally, and partake of a variety of lotions, soaps and sundry other scrubs.

Perhaps this explains our clear thinking regarding the concept of good vs. evil and why a certain, um, fog, clouds yours.

Shout out to the US/UK/Aussie and other multilateral type troops, we support you!

re: frenchman.

Can't the rest of you guys recognize a joke when you see it? He's obviously winding you up. If he was serious he would have written four paragraphs on the alienation of meaning inherent in our moral paradigm.

ROTFLMAO on what the Frenchman posted... The web with all the translation sites help those of us who do not read French or German proficiently.

France's historical moral authority:
Well BEFORE the Nazi's asked them to hand over Jews and other "undesirables" for mass murder in the concentration camps, the French rounded them up and shipped them off... Anything that the French say about other countries "poor behavior" r ignorance should be met with disdain and/or silence.

They keep on proving that they are not worthy of our protection in modern times; psssst... they have no army to speak of now. I am sure that all those who fought or lost loved ones at Normandy (my great-uncle included) are appalled at France's shortsightedness.

I stopped buying anything French, German or Nordic a long time ago. My own private boycott might not accomplish anything on a grand scale, but it sure makes us feel good! If enough other people do the same thing, they may see the light at the end of the tunnel ... they only understand something if it is going to cost them money.

Still, though (Seb). You gotta love the way 2sees put it. Whether that french guy was serious or not, he said what a lot of Europeans are thinking. The world has a VERY short memory.

Thanks for clearing that one up for me. Too bad that you have to/chose to live in Europe.

The world: no. Many people who forget what they wish to make their positions more desirable: yes. Though Zsees used a bit more curses than I would have, what he said was true. Oh, and what Madhulika said was nice, but I think [even] the Frech wash [ocasionally]. Though some Americans are pig-headed morons, and fall under our European steriotype, most are not. And the ones that post on this site (the conservative ones) are intellegent, educated people. I think Europe needs to get it's head out of it's *ss, personally. Saddam is a dangerous man, and will continue to be so. I don't know why Europe won't recognize this. It's so effing obvious!! It makes me sick!

... I think Chiraq is in a worse jam than just the TotalFinaElf deal...
With the visits to Baghdad and such, I think it's fairly probable that his fingers are all over Saddam's WMD. If those WMDs are used, he's going to look PERSONALLY responsible, and maybe even liable and culpable. Already there's a $900Bn lawsuit against the Saudis working its way through US courts.
Imagine the reaction if Chiraq were found to be personally involved in giving Saddam a nuclear weapon that actually got used.
Imagine the reaction if it were found that Chiraq's fingerprints were on Halabja in an unofficial capacity.

He knows what he's done.
I'm not the least bit surprised he doesn't want it coming out.

If the French don't want to help remove Saddam Hussein from power, that's fine. They don't have to share the U.S. view that he's evil, or believe that he's dangerous. But I do wish that they'd sip their wine, nibble on their cheese, shake their wise, old heads at our folly and get the hell out of our way. If it's none of their business what Saddam does, then it's none of their business what the U.S. does to Saddam.

The French and Germans are just trying to show up the Americans by flexing their EU muscle...but like I said, we don't need them anyway. The truth is they have no power. They make me ashamed to be part French.

so harry belafonte has a problem with
Colin Powell's role in the white house
and alludes to an uncle tom mentality.

well well well.

at least Powell never claimed to be from
JAMAICA just to support his CALYPSO career!

whats a matter, uncle harry?
not comfortable in your own SKIN???

I am so glad I found this post, Hello kindred spirits! Just a few thoughts, Seb: the Frenchman is not kidding...

Frenchman: Life is like a properly exposed black and white photograph, there are a complete range of tones, from purest white to deepest black. You need to examine the simple cowardice, that is at the heart of the intellectual dishonesty, preventing you from calling evil, evil. People's behavior, not intentions, is what defines their moral status. It's not a judgment, or even an opinion, it's a recognition of reality.

Latest report is that Chiraq is having Saddam's baby.

I was going to give up using anything French, but as much as I tried, I couldn't find anything that I used that WAS French...

Letting the Soviets grab eastern Europe was no big deal. The biggest mistake we made at the end of WWII was giving France back to the French. If they were so willing to give it away, who were we to make them take it back?

All I have to say is 2sees summed things up nicely. 2sees, I concur!

Oh, and if 'curse words' are what is needed to poignantly make your point, just warn Paul C. Tindall [response]to cover his eyes next time. Hey Paul, sprout a pair would'ya!

I think the president has everyone who is opposed to this war right where he wants them...

I couldn't of asked for a better situation than for the enemies of peace and freedom to be used bring to light every country who claims to share our values. There has never been a situation where we find our so-called friends and allies so boldly telling us how they trully feel.

Since Sept. 12, 2002, I've learned that it's not just some Arab countries that hate us, for even they seemed surprised at the level of anti-Americanism that has come out of some parts of Europe!
(I know Saddam is)

I've learned more about the French than at any time in my life. In my opinion, it's not a bad thing at all for the French and Germans to hang everything out as they have been in their condemnation of our country. It's bad timing on their part having a Republican in office. It's good for us because of the changes that might need to be made, changes that a Democrat couldn't handle.

You see, at the end of the day, after all the critisism and outrage towards our country, Americans will still be Americans who work hard everyday, who go to Walmart and Home Depot on Saturdays and church on Sundays. Nothing has changed except our new perception of our so called friends.

Yes it seems black and white and it is. So just as everything is seen when the lights go on, so too is the situation we find oursleves in where our "friends" are being seen for who they really are.

Dear All :

I love you all ! You are so Amurikhan ! Thank you very much indeed ! ;)

GREAT SITE!! I agree with killerflix! Hollyweird won't get my money.

My, my , my...

I think many of you, even many of you who agree with me, are missing a huge piece of this puzzle.

I grew up in the Midwest (Kansas), and I served 20 years in the nuclear submarine navy. I was brought up with a deep respect for the Flag and the 4th of July, to respect law enforcement, and to appreciate that what makes this country so great is our freedom to question our government without fear of being jailed or shot.

I love the United States. Our founding forefathers didn't create a perfect government--nothing touched by faulted human beings ever WILL be perfect. But in the big picture of things, they NAILED it. There is nowhere anywhere else on this planet where one can find opportunity such as we have. NOWHERE! That's why so many people from corrupt and/or oppressive regimes are willing to risk dying in our Southwest after crossing the border, and put themselves on lifeboats to get to Florida.

We have some UNBELIEVABLY disrespectful, ignorant, and spoiled brats turning their backs on the flag at basketball games, and wearing T-Shirts which decry the President as an "International Terrorist," but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone from this country dying of dehydration or exposure in the wilderness after illegally crossing our Northern OR our Southern border to find a better life in Canada or Mexico, or being found crammed into cargo ships in foreign ports in desperate attempts to reach friendlier shores.

I'm not deeply religious--spiritual would be a better description, but one almost has to wonder if men like Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Franklin weren't divinely inspired to set down the framework for the government that would ultimately became the US.

I'm a conservative, but I didn't even realize how much so until after 9/11. I wept on 9/11, and then I became angry. I couldn't understand why we waited so long to rip the Taliban a new one, because I want(ed) bin Laden's head on a spike!

I began to study what is, and what has been happening in the Middle East, because I wanted to understand why al Quaeda and others hate us so much.

I found these major concepts which you don't really hear much:

1) bin Laden and his ilk have no less an ambition than forcing their radical fundamentalist version of Islamic law on the entire world.

He believes his god wants anyone who disagrees with him to die. The US is simply the biggest obstacle in his way. I think all this crap about us occupying the Muslim holy lands in Saudi Arabia is a smokescreen.

I want to believe that OBL represents only a radical fringe of Islam that seems to have hijacked an entire religion, but the silence from moderate Muslims continues to be deafening! Where's the outrage? Where's the condemnation of terrorism? Instead I only hear whining about racial profiling. I try to put myself in their shoes, and I think I too would be resentful, and picked on. But you know what? If I'm not one of the bad guys, I want to be safe from dying on a hijacked plane, too!

2) The conflict between the Palestinians and Israel will likely never be resolved until one side annihilates the other, and it's not for lack of the Israeli's trying. Even some of the Arab nations have tried. Egypt's Anwar Sadat finally grew weary of the constant war, and decided to make peace with Israel so that he could concentrate on modernizing his country to make better lives for his people. Radicals killed him.

The Palestinian Authority has walked away from every single attempt to come to a peaceful agreement, even when offered something like 96% of what they wanted. The true but sad fact is the Palestinians do not WANT peace. They want Israel destroyed, but thus far, they have not been able to do so.

The Palestinians are only in refugee camps because they behaved like spoiled brats from the jumpstart in 1948, and said if they couldn't have all of it, they didn't want any of it.

And that is where they have been for 55 years, waiting for their Arab "brothers" to successfully conquer Israel. Every time the Arab nations have attacked Israel to try to achieve this, they've had their asses handed to them by Israel.

How the Palestinians think suicide bombings in Israel are going to earn them any sympathy in the world community, I still fail to comprehend. But Saddam Hussein has been funding those who carry out suicide bombings in Israel, and helping to support their families.

That is the link to terrorism we should be focusing on in Iraq. One argument of the left is that Saddam isn't linked to 9/11. The fact is that our war on international terrorism isn't just a war of revenge for 9/11, and I really don't want to send the rest of the world that message!

What frightens me is what Kruschev said about destroying us from within, and Lenin coined the phrase about "Useful Idiots." This is documented in Mona Charen's book, "Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First."

What many people seem to me to miss is the transparent agenda of the Hollywood "Liberals." I think there are a variety of mindsets out there:

1) There are the consistent 11% who always say, and genuinely believe there is never a good reason for war. They will oppose war regardless of who is in the White House, or who controls Congress. I think Richard Gere is in this group.

2) Those who are simply misinformed or uninformed, whether because of laziness and a failure to educate themselves, or simply because of denial and a steadfast refusal to let the facts in their face get in the way of their opinion. This includes many faithful Democrats who simply do not trust GW Bush, but will not even consider evidence that his intentions are to do what he believes is the right thing. I can't think of any celebrities who fall into this group, because it's hard to gauge what they really know or believe, but I have family members who fall into this group.

3) There is a 3rd, and most despicable group, and that is those who KNOW the truth, but misrepresent it in order to meet their own political agenda. Sheryl Crow falls into this group. She was not silent during Clinton's assault on Belgrade to topple Slobodan Milosevic. Nor was she silent in Bosnia and Kosovo. No, she was touring the region with Hillary, Chelsea, Sinbad and the USO, performing for the troops. She said, "Once over there I felt extremely patriotic."

September 15, 2000 Sheryl Crow performed for an Al Gore campaign fund-raiser at Radio City Music Hall. Hmmm... In actuality, it was a horribly vitriolic Bush-bash fest. I'm not going to paste quotes--you can look it up:l
http://www.salmahayek.org/article_salon.html

Now even if this had been friendly locker-room style joking between friends, the agenda is quite clear.

There is so much more, but to sum it up, a blog entry I found:

"but sheryl crow is so hot man.. why does she have to be such a pacifist liberal whore?!? UGGH!!!"

She's not a pacifist liberal whore. She's a phony Democrat liberal whore. I think she is the most dangerous sort of "Useful Idiot." While she exploits the microphone every chance she gets to spew her liberal crap, rumor has it she is involved in shutting down Pro-America rally in Cleveland at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. This is not a pro-war rally, but simply a patriotic, wave the flag, support the troops fighting for our freedom, 4th of July sort of event. And she would silence it if she could for the sole purpose of furthering her political agenda.

This war is about OIL.

Well what did you all expect? Bad actors with good comments? It probably took Looney Clooney and a team of writers a week to come up with those lines. Their combined IQ's wouldn't total up to enough to reach the imbecile level.

Question : "What is wrong with believing that their are evil people in the world?"

Answer : Why are those evil people so often present allies or former allies or future allies of the United States of America ?

I've heard way too much about this proposed war being about OIL. Well, it is. Our Independent Liberty!

We can't allow self-serving dictators to threaten the lives of our families, destroy our cities, and threaten our Liberty.

Can anyone, anywhere, name one other country in the history of the world that has given more time, money, and food to help other countries in the world than our own United States of America? We as Americans do more in one WEEK to help others than every Arab nation put together has done since the dawn of recorded history!

An interesting collection of commentary. For my own part I would point out that what many of the liberal and "peaceniks" seem to miss. There are people in this world who do not car about being nice, talking about problems. The only thing that people of this type understand is power and violence. This is the "schoolyard bully" theory. A bully doesn't want to talk about why he hates you, he just wants to beat the snot out of you. You can talk all you please; in the meantime you're getting pounded. Also, once you let someone victimize you, it's much easier to let them do it a second time and so on.
So, that's where we are in the world. The Euros have gotten used to bending over for these penny-ante dictators that it's all they know how to do. The liberal/peace protestors are waiting to take a beating. Thankfully, the rest of us (and out President)understand the truth of these things and are seeking to stop the bully before the neating starts.

We have been attacked. We don't need France's permisson to defend ourselves.Chirac is getting his nut thinking he is forcing the US to bend to his will. The only group of people our government has to answer to is the American people, and that just galls the hell out of the Gauls. So, we go in kick the hell out of Iraq, France circles around like the buzzards they have always been, and then demands their share of the take. I say we bill them for rebuilding Iraq. And then forbid THEM from doing any kind of business with Iraq. We don't have to put up with this crap.

I think it's interesting that France (collectively)seeks to instruct others on foreign/military policy.
France has not, in and of itself, won a major war since the French Revolution (in which it fought itself).
France was steamrolled twice in less than thirty years, by the same country, and the French government basically handed Germany the keys and left for Britain. In both cases, the French government initially chose the path of appeasement and, in both cases, thier country was overrun.
I think that we need to take "with a grain of salt", French opinions on military matters.

These reactions are one of the better ones so far! Keep up the good work, you righteous hawks!! Some lefties brains are indeed filthier than Saddam's weapons.

Frenchie,

Answer : Why are those evil people so often present allies or former allies or future allies of the United States of America ?

That is not an answer, it is a question. Here is the answer: We are not proud of our former alliance with the evil French, but you helped us out in the Revolution. We were desperate.

I think the French and Frenchman for that matter, really has nothing to say, just wants to say something. Has no facts or foundations, just wants to open that mouth. They wouldn't, maybe I should say couldn't, even defend themselves if their lives depended on it. Of course we're evil. Everyone knows that whoever is on top of the world is going to have at least 10 people gunning for that spot.

The only attacks that will come to U.S. soil are going to be the hit-and-miss attacks such as 9/11, yet no country will ever bring troops over here. I fear that once these hit-and-miss attacks start occuring, many innocent people in the United States (of Middle Eastern decent) will be shot by the armed Americans. This is not a good thing, but as you all know, we, as Americans, will protect our way of life by any means necessary.

Should any country, and I mean any country, feel like knocking us off the top spot, you're going to have to do it from where you are. That, in itself, should prove to be quite impossible.

Like was said before, if we do act, we're imperialistic pigs, and if we do nothing, we don't care about the suffering. Make up your damn minds....Do you want our money or what?

Bring it on ...
Dusty.

"A European" Hmmmm....Had the United States done nothing, that European would have only been a German...Funny. They never seem to remember that.
Dusty.

For all those people who have decided to become a terrorist loving human shield, I say this to the pilot of our Armed Forces.....DON'T MISS!!!!!!!!

FRANCE IS NEXT!!!!

I support Pres. Bush's current efforts, but wish he'd hurry up and get around to invading France and liberating the Americans buried there. Why do we even care what a has-been country thinks? If they wanted a voice in the world, they ought to have considering having a military.

As for being enlightened or sophisticated, what's up their laws making it a crime to insult their flag, anthem or president? Last year they passed a law allowing for state repression of certain religious movements. Hmmm.

On the other hand, it is refreshing to see a country take the progressive step to an all-female leadership, even if many of them are rather man-ish looking.

Most Germans seem to realize their current Farleft'n'stupid government has got to go, but we Americans clearly will soon be called upon to enact regime-change by force in France. I suggest capturing Saddam alive and installing him in France for a few decades.

I support the War on Iraq. And I am tired of seeing the anti-war activists holding rallys and protests. When was the last time we saw a "Support the War" rally or march? If anyone is sponsoring one in the Los Angeles area, let me know. I would love to attend and show my support for President Bush and those in favor of going to war.

One question comes to mind when I see all the anti-war activists. Will they finally support a war if a Terrorist blows them or their family up?? Will they? Or will they still scream for peace in the world (wishful thinking)??? Why must we wait for terrorism to strike here and kill our innocent people. Sure Saddam got voted in this time. 100% of the vote. How do you achieve a full 100%??? Do the people actually have choices?? Or was the ballot simply Saddam or death?

Dusty.

Dear Geoff

Quotation : "Frenchman: Life is like a properly exposed black and white photograph, there are a complete range of tones, from purest white to deepest black. You need to examine the simple cowardice, that is at the heart of the intellectual dishonesty, preventing you from calling evil, evil. People's behavior, not intentions, is what defines their moral status. It's not a judgment, or even an opinion, it's a recognition of reality."

Answerm (opinion):

1) A "moral status" is not a recognition of reality. It is the opinion of one person about another person and this according to a specific moral system (There is NO absolute referential).

2) People's intention, not behavior, is what defines their moral status.

Mr. Frenchman:

We seem to have a problem with the definition of morals and morality. Therefore, I will define it for you: 1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment e : capable of right and wrong action
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL
3 : having the effects of such on the mind, confidence, or will

Now Mr. Frenchman....It has everything to do with behavior. Every animal in the world knows the difference between right and wrong. Unfortunately for you, you have the ability to look past all the wrong and FIND (actually digging as hard as you can) something that you can call right....oh wait...You can't say Iraq is right....You can only say that the United States is wrong....

You need to go back to school and learn a few things, before you open that hole in your face you call a mouth.

Dusty.

A lot of Americans of all religions and colors are lying dead in France and Belgium and Germany. The American military cemeteries are places of honor for all people who cherish freedom. The Germans are still learning what democracy is all about but Belgium and France have a deep responsibility to remember WHO came to their aid over and over again in the 1st and 2nd World War and who took over for them in Vietnam. They seem to always forget that when the Free French re-entered Paris in 1945, they were riding in General Motors Trucks and eating American food delivered by the American Merchant Marine. If they would have put all this energy they now show as anti-war activists into protecting their fellow citizens against the Nazis, maybe they would have a leg to stand on -- BUT as it is - the French government is and always has been a whore.

Frenchman:

As Donald Rumsfeld is wont to say...

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."

That interview with Saddam was a joke. It was like watching a death row inmate wearing a suit and tie and never being asked why he killed a bunch of people. And the interviewer (in this case Dan Rather) never asking him about why he has murdered thousands of his own people. If you get the interview Dan, ask the tough questions!
We could have got Larry King to ask those questions!

Hey Dusty,

All animals know right from wrong? Uhhhh.....

Yes Dave, although the thoughts escape me on how to prove this, I'll go ahead and retract that comment and clarify: All humans know the difference between right and wrong. Sorry about that Dave.

Dusty.

Frenchman,

In a serious response to your question: Why are those evil people so often present allies or former allies or future allies of the United States of America ?

I am not going to claim that the U.S. has never made a mistake, but I will say this. Whenever the U.S. has compromised its principles and has, for reasons of realpolitik or choosing the lesser of two evils, sided with an evil regime, we have almost always done more harm than good to our own long term interests.

France will find that the short term profit that it is making from oil contracts and illegal weapon sales to Iraq will be miniscule in comparison to the harm that it is doing to its credibility and reputation by allying itself with one of the two most brutal regimes in the world today.

I don't think that the soon to be free Iraqis will look kindly on those who profited from their misery.

When asked by Tony Snow on Fox News Sunday why she did not volubly and actively protest the previous administration's bombings of Serbia, Iraq, and the Sudan, she responded,"It wasn't hip then". I think that this comment puts into perspective the serious consideration of world events among those outspoken entertainment industry elite. I am writing, of course, about that maven of Foreign Policy, Jeanine Garafalo.
This situation does much to illuminate just exactly which segment of America is "ill informed and brainwashed"

I just found this site today ( 27feb03) and had a GREAT lunch break reading all the comments.

Dolphinwriter: spot on from a former Leatherneck.

Fenchman: read the Federalist papers.

Dont spend your money on Hollyweird or others who work to marginalize the principles upon which this great country was founded. The primary difference between the USA and the so-called free democracies of Europe, UK included, is "We the people". Our forefathers got it right. Freedom is given to us by an almighty Creator. Not government which, by extension, what it gives, it can take away. Except for income taxes of course. The only money the government has is what it takes from us to spend on our behalf.

If nothing else comes out of deposing an evil tyrant, I certainly hope that freedom loving Americans will remember who are the enemies of the United States, domestic and foreign, and then do something about it.

For example, you may not know of a term called totalization, being bantered about in the halls of congress, as we speak. It has to do with passing a law allowing illegal aliens to become recipients of the supposed assets of the social security trust fund. There is a bill, H.R. 489 which should be supported to prevent this outrageous money grab from taking place.

One example of many. UMich is another.

Don't just rest on your laurels. Get active!
Semper Fidelis,
P.A.W.

This is a great quote from John Stuart Mill: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The ugliest is that man who thinks nothing is worth fighting and dying for and lets men better and braver than himself protect him." I read it in the "The Nightingale's Song" by Robert Timberg....a great book about 5 heroic Americans. I recommend every American read this book.

Send me to Baghdad and the problem will be over in a night.

Frenchman:

Are we to trust the French Government, then, as the Czechs, Poles, French citizens and Cambodians did?

Can you name ANYTHING that French diplomats have gotten involved in that hasn't contributed to a bloodbath?

for you, idiotic liberal/quazi-socialist, every war is about oil (except...if we want the oil so bad, how come we didn't take it in '91? Beside, guess which country made the most money out of the Iraqi oil-for-food program...gee, that wouldn't be France, would it?
Brake up NATO, change our status in the UN to observer and boycott the Oscars. I call you all to sabotage every hollywood activity; if you see a movie-set location hunk your horn!!! They have to take an other take or dub the sound!!! Hackle any show or public event. Wear ans flash your anti-libelar t shirt whenever you see a news or any film crew. Annoy them to no end, maybe they'll do a favor for all of us and commit suicide!

I have found a solution to our problems with the liberals.

Fine, we'll wait. Wait forever. BUT!!! In the meantime, if there is one - JUST ONE - terrorist attack on American soil, then we hold you liable for treason against the U.S. as said in Article III of the U.S. Constitution - "Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." I am more than positive that Saddam is comforted by the amounts of "Americans" that aren't very American.
So you have your way liberal-Americans, we'll wait. But will you hold up your part of the bargain?

I didn't think so. Want your cake and eat it too.
Dusty.

I am reminded of the AFLAC duck (as he waddles out the barber shop door)everytime a liberal opens their mouth.

Oh, by the way, frenchman, YOU'RE WELCOME from all the GIs that served and died in WWII

Human shield=Human target

Ready, aim, fire!

Re. Dan Rather's interview: If he didn't ask certain tough questions, keep in mind that anyone actually granted an interview with Hussein would likely be restricted from discussing certain topics, no doubt the killings of his own people being one of them. In that situation, a journalist would take what they could get as better than nothing, and try to find what they could within the confines of discussion.

There are 2 major reasons why France, Germany and Russia are causing such problems with the United States and the inevitable war with Iraq, which are:
1. They are envious of the United States. They see all that we have and what we have accomplished as a true democracy and they cannot stand it. They feel that with the history that they have and as long as they have been around that they deserve to do and say anything they want. That bubble has now burst and they realize that they cannot, so they have started to act like little spoiled chilren. The blocking of the UN resolutions are a way for them to have power against the most powerful country in the world. It is time for us to snub our noses at them and do what we know to be right, to hell with what they think!
2. They have so many under the table contracts with Iraq that they are afraid that we will find out. We already know about the oil contracts (especially Russia and France), but once we march into Baghdad and look at there "pharmaceutical" equipment (filled with antrax), what will we see? We will see the logos of "Made in Germany/France/Russia." That is what we will see. Our "allies" have sold us out and are giving this awful technology to a terrorist state. THEY ARE NOT WITH US, and it is time we stand up and reveal what these countries are really up to.

ATTENTION:

I hereby proclaim that as of 7:00pm February 27, 2003 they will now be called "American Fries".

This will eliminate any guilt when I go to a burger joint.

Re: a bit of French history on why theyre scissies about war:

-- Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

-- Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."

-- Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

-- Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.

-- Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

-- War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots a schapeaux.

-- The Dutch War - Tied.

-- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War -Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

-- War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

-- American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

-- French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

-- The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

-- The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

-- World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States and Britain. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraeulein. "Sadly, widespread use of condoms by British and American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

-- World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

-- War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu.

-- Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

-- War on Terrorism - France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.

When was the last time the French showed [guts] enough to achieve success in any military situation. We Americans have saved their [tails]
several times at a great loss of our pepole in the struggle.

HOW COULD YOU SAY THAT???

Gallic Wars - Lost. Like every country in Europe even your friends in Britain.

-- Hundred Years War - WON. don't you know that we kicked english out of france!

-- Italian Wars - WON. and at this period italia was not a country...silly boy

-- Wars of Religion -the Huguenots were french people it was a civil war between catholics and protestants

-- Thirty Years War - FALSE

-- War of Devolution - ....????

-- The Dutch War - :)

-- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War - At this period france was the first power in the world!

-- War of the Spanish Succession - ....the spanish king is the son of a french king

-- American Revolution - WE WON AGAINST ENGLISH...FRENCH DIES FOR YOUR COUNTRY FOR YOUR INDEPENDANCE...THANX????

-- French Revolution - a revolution is not a war!.

-- The Napoleonic Wars - noone else ever had so much part of europe in his empire...try to do it...you can't!!!! :).

-- The Franco-Prussian War - LOST i'm ok!.

-- World War I - FRANCE AND UK WON ALONE US CAME AT THE END...THERE WAS FRENCH AND ENGLISH BLOOD ONLY ON THE FIELDS.

-- World War II - WON. hey boy we were allies!!! if we lose you lose understand???

-- War in Indochina - Lost.yes And then war in Vietnam lost by the US...too bad...are really better than us???!!! you lose boo!! booo !!!! boo!!!.

-- Algerian Rebellion -WON. learn boy! independance was the only for this country but we won the war...and then let them to their own destiny

-- War on Terrorism - THERE IS NO WAR IT'S ALL IN YOUR HEAD!!! THERE WAS ISLAMIC TERRORISM IN FRANCE IN THE 80's and the early 90's...we did no war but there is no more problem in France...do you understand the french way?

NOW I UNDERSTAND WHY AMERICA HATE FRANCE THAT'S BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT US...

AND REMEMBER YOU R NOT AND ENGLISH COLONY THANX TO FRANCE...DON'T FORGET...THAT WAS BEFORE WW2....

ps: I DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH VERY WELL BUT REMEMBER THAT YOU DON'T EVEN SPEAK FRENCH....

There are objective moral standards, from a certain perspective. Anything that furthers or preserves the life of an organism is "good" for that organism; the opposite is "bad" or an evil.

Applied to people, who are a very particular type of organism, this means: whatever protects the principles of survival proper to man's nature, is good. What undercuts those principles is evil.

What principles fit man's nature and make him (or her) a successful human being? Honesty, productiveness, independence, integrity, and a few others of that type. Moral principles.

Simple examples: dictatorship fights man's nature; people survive in dictatorships (to the extent they do) *in spite of* the dictatorship (they are able to evade the authorities, for example). What about the dictator? Being a dictator is bad for the dictator too. Look at Hitler and Stalin; both ended up certifiably insane. Adolf was riding high for a while, but he ended up eating a bullet ... after turning his whole country into a heap of rubble. Unethical human beings are not successful human beings, despite any momentary apperances. The crack addict after his first-ever hit looks different than he does after his last-ever hit... Or, try this: the healthy guy who lays around every day, as compared to the guy who works for a living every day and takes care of his health. Or, the miserable life of a murderer vs. the great life of a creative hero. Which is the successful organism in the long run (barring accidents)?

It's evil vs. good - OBJECTIVELY.

Life or death is not a difference of opinion ... there are objective rules you must live by in order to have a successful life, or a successful society ... A society of serial killers, communists, and pedophiles is not a successful society; nor are the individual killers, communists, and pedophiles successful human beings; they are sad human botches.

This "everything is subjective" nonsense is the ultimate resort of the coward and the immoralist. Just because people can disagree over (some) particular ethical principles does not mean that ethics *per se* should be thrown out the window as "only somebody's opinion." Wake up to reality.

Napoleon huh? How about picking a French hero that was actually french? not corsikan. How dare you imply that france is some how better militarlly than america. i guess you frogs forgot who saved your [tails] in ww1 and ww2. Mabye france did at one time have some great military prowess but now their nothing but whining, scared little babys who are crying because they just realized that no one cares what they say. the real reason you are against this war is because were gonna do what you couln't do (even if you tryed) Get rid of terrorism. You people oppose the war because its the only way you "appear" to be important.
As for learning french. if i wanna learn frog talk i can go to a zoo.

Peace out.

You are a rationalizing revisionist, mon pauvre!

Ssshh...no one wants to say it out loud but going to war for oil isn't necessarily an immoral or bad thing. If the major oil supplies of the world are controlled by those bunch of bobos in the middle east or any other puny, nitwit, wannabe-in-the-park-with-the-big-boys country, the US economy would suffer terribly. our whole way of life would be changed/lost and all the worlds' economy (which depend upon the US economy) would collapse and widespread ruin would cover this earth. Then all those Hollyweirdos wouldn't have the fuel to run their limos or jets or A/C their mansions. (Is film actually made with a petroleum by-product?) Would they be blabbing then about how the administration should go GET some oil?

has anyone heard about the teachers in maine telling children in their classrooms that have parents called to service that the war was immoral blah blah and therefore their parent(s)who was on his/her way to war was immoral blah blah. this occurred in several different places across the state. (what are the odds it's not going on all in classrooms all over the country? i wouldn't take that bet.) the board of education, in response to complaints by the parents and the army, sent a memo to teachers advising sensitivity. gee, you think that was too harsh on the teachers? i hope those parents SUE SUE SUE and make a gigantic STINK.

I wish I knew enough french to call all you french a bunch of pendejos. We don't need no STINKIN' frenchies permission to remove Saddam. The only real victory France has had was over the unarmed Greenpeace boat. No doubt about that one, they won.

So your implying that i'm irrational?(sigh)If only i had the wisdom of your french leaders,who want to double the inspectors and waste more time on this. you people know that saddam is mobilizing his troops north, digging trenches and preparing for combat right? well what does that tell you? is he going to comply? why would he do that if he truly wanted to cooperate? but i guess only a truly rational person could suggest another resolution(after over a dozen failed one's)and What does mon pauvre mean anyway?

AHW--Indeed, what you've heard about a few teachers making VERY insensitive comments, to kids as young as 7 years old, is true.

The US Army should send a battery of lawyers to Maine to sue the teachers involved on behalf of the military families.

I am the chairman of the Libertarian Party in Maine. I believe that the most important function of government is to protect the people whom it serves.

This war is about protecting America. And it is about liberating people suffering under a criminally insane bully.

Hollywood sucks. I never understood how people can watch the crap they turn out.

France and Germany suck, too.

Is France still a country? Who cares? The only things they've ever contributed to the world worth keeping is Veuve Cliquot and Napoleon's emancipation of the Jews. And as pointed out above, he was a Corsican.

You want black and white? How's this... "We don't need to know why. We have the body count."
-- Dredd

OK, so the french are flexing what little muscle they have left as so many new eastern european contries that openly look to the US for guidance will be joining the E.U. within the next year that both france and germany fear loosing what little influence in the E.U. that they currently posses. So the question remains as to why that scares them so? Bah, they just hate us because we saved [them] and funded the rebuilding of their countries and everytime they start spouting crap about how there are no black and whites in this world we convieniently remind them that that's what they said just before germany invaded france. And that REALLY [angers] them. LOL I love the french and germans. While I was over there I loved many french and german women...they seemed very amiable really...but most of the men where either overly educated and rather surprisingly unintelligent or their fixation with disco and Knight Rider was just to strongly disturbing for me to over look ;)
Nah, not really I met some good people over there and for the most part(excepting the 2 NeoNatzi's I got detained for beating the crap out of) I had a rather pleasent time and was well received.

Though even at that time some 6 years ago it was readily evident that while the peoples of those two countries liked the American people...they didn't really care for our foreign policy. To which I replied " Who cares? Just mind your own business come when you get in a bind again you're just gonna be eating your words again!" And I know how much you hate that.

Peace my brothers and sisters.
J
haha sorry couldn't help myself.

To Dusty :

Quotation : "1 a : of or relating to PRINCIPLES of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL b : expressing or teaching a CONCEPTION of right behavior c : conforming to a STANDARD of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's CONSCIENCE or ethical JUDGMENT e : capable of right and wrong action"

Answer (my opinion): If I read it properly it is talking about principles, conception, standard, conscience, judgment and not about behaviour in itself.

I personally think that there are no objective moral standards.

Quote (Napolean):
-- World War I - FRANCE AND UK WON ALONE US CAME AT THE END...THERE WAS FRENCH AND ENGLISH BLOOD ONLY ON THE FIELDS.

-- World War II - WON. hey boy we were allies!!! if we lose you lose understand???

Alright, World War I. The French and United Kingdom did not have the war won when the US showed up. Unfortunately, at the time the US showed up, the Germans were still advancing, and the French and British were still in dire straits. Then United States reinforcements began to ship in and the German attack ran out of steam and was pushed back.

Granted, most of the fighting was done by European Powers (hell, the Australians suffered more battle casualties then the Americans) but it was the arrival of fresh forces that turned the tide and brought everything to a close.

But saying the French and English ONLY fought and bled for the Allied cause? That is insulting and arrogant and disrespectful to the other nations who fought beside you. The Australians, Canadians, Indians (the Sub-Continent variety), New Zealanders, French Colonial Troops and many others. Or do you think they didn't count, Nappy? You didn't even suffer worst, to say nothing of suffering alone. To use the Australian example again, they suffered a casualty rate of 66% or so of all forces committed. The nearest to that was the English, at 51%.

As for World War II ... sorry to put this to Napolean but, my dear Corsican, the French fight in World War II started with the German's Schileffen Manuever that swung in from the North and ended with their utter defeat scant weeks later. After that? Well after a year or so of Nazi occupation, Resistance slowly began to flare up as the reality of the Nazi's slowly hit them.

Maybe if the French were to spend a year under Saddam they wouldn't be quite so quick to condemn them to more of the same. Then again ... maybe they would. You don't see much of the same spine the French showed in WWII today, which possibly classes as the most disturbing comment I've found myself making this week.

Then came the Free French Army, which was, of course, instrumental to the destruction of the Nazi war machine. Of wait? It wasn't? Oh my mistake, that was the USA and USSR! And the Canadians, British and Eastern Europeans.

The French people as a Nation had little to nothing to do with winning the war with Germany. They couldn't stand, thanks to their own thinking, their own cutbacks and their own arrogance, and fell accordingly.

On the performance of the French? Those leading them were blind, in that they refused to see the danger coming at them, expecting the attack to come from only one direction, across their comfortable defense lines. Even after recon photos showed the presence of German Panzer units on the Northern Borders, the Generals in charge had convinced themselves the attack would come from the east. Instead it swept down on them from the North and they were destroyed, not in detail, but in massive master stroke from an intelligent enemy. I don't know about you, but I'm seeing some of the same thinking here that the French showed back then; comfortable thinking that leads to disaster.

Rule #1: Them that has the gold, makes the rules

The United States does not belong to the rest of the world. It belongs to the Americans. We are a soveriegn nation, and as such, have the right to make decisions (foreign policy and otherwise) based SOLELY on our own interests. Practically speaking; yes, it behooves the US to consider other nations - however, we actually have no obligation to do so. Our government is not psychic and the task of balancing our own needs against those of other nations is a very, very difficult one. What may have been a good decision last year may have unforseen repercussions this year. That does not make us bad. Someone who might have been our ally may turn on us. We work hard to help other nations with BILLIONS of dollars in aid and protection. We do not OWE our aid, it is a gift. We are not the United States of EARTH, we are the United States of AMERICA. If these other countries want a piece of our pie, let them become another STATE. With all our warts and pimples and hanging our dirty laundry out for all and sundry, we are still the place people literally DIE to get into.

I don't know how many of you are millionaires out there, but I do know that I am not. We're spending 15 billion dollars to park tanks and other equipment in Turkey...That equates to fifteen thousand stacks of one million dollars. All of the billions and billions and billions of dollars we give to foreign aid could be BETTER SPENT HERE AT HOME. So all of you whiny people that are receiving money (Someway or another) need to quit whining. You'll still be able to suck off of our system. We're not like you.

Dusty.

It's like taxes. I don't mind paying taxes. What I do mind is when my hard-earned dollar is spent on garbage. Same thing with foreign aid. First, take care of our own citizens (a few billion dollars for improved schools and healthcare for all might be a nice starting point). If there's anything left to send as foreign aid, stop the flow the moment the bags of wheat are left rotting on the docks while different factions fight for control of it, the moment the "leader" takes the aid for his personal wealth while his people starve, the moment the "leader" perpetrates human rights violations. I do believe our foreign policy decision makers need some backbone but to be honest, how can they feel the American citizenry would back them up if they made controversial decisions? We need to be... [selfish] for just one year. There's nothing wrong or immoral in first taking care of one's own. Let the rest of the world see what it's like without the US gravy train making a stop at their stations. Truly, I could care less if someone likes us. They only have to be afraid of us. And in these pitiful, ignorant, backward places, they only respect those that they fear. With the US being the only superpower left on the planet, the other countries ought to just be damn happy we're a pretty much benevolent, non-agressor nation.

Money for AIDS in Africa.....why? 15 Billion dollars to uneducated people in Africa to fight AIDS?? How in the world is an uneducated person in Africa going to be able to keep up with the series of cocktails required to put HIV into submission and are they going to realize that they are not HIV free? What a waste of my money. They have people over there that are infected with the AIDS virus having sex with infants because they think they can get rid of the virus that way! Amazing to me that this is even being considered. How many BILLIONS of dollars have been spent on the African continent over the past 50 years? And what is there to show for it??

Anyone?

Question:

How do we have a national deficit of billions of dollars when all of these countries we supposedly owe money to, in actuality owe us that and more?

CLOSE THE BORDERS. EVERYBODY OUT! (That includes hatemongers and flag-burners)
America for real Americans.

I could not agree more. Although if we close the borders, many other people would look at that as we are discriminating against the world's hungry, tired, and poor (You can almost see Hillary Clinton saying something like that, huh?). So no matter what, the United States is and always will be in a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't situation.
We need to stop pleasing everyone else, reduce our government to about 1/4 of it's now monstrous size and take that damn plaque off the Statue of Liberty. I'm sick of paying for transplants of people coming into the country illegally, pushing aside our own American people, allowing 16 of OUR people to die each day while that girl received 2 hearts and 4 lungs.....

Overall, what's right is right, and what is wrong will stay wrong.

One year...Imagine one year without being flooded by every possible angle with immigrants looking for a better life, using that money to feed our homeless....better yet, give them a home...
It must be difficult filling out a job application and putting homeless where address should be...(I don't know one company that would hire someone without an address)

Many, many things we could do and SAVE more money each year just by helping our own and damning the rest.

Dusty.

That's right. We are damned if we do/damned if we don't so let's "don't"...I think billions of dollars in aid/loan forgiveness is a subject sufficiently weighty to merit general elections just like we elect our goverment. The foreign nation can put in a request, the parties can campaign pro/con for two years and then the issue would be put to a vote. Let the American people speak to this issue. The average American citizen has no clue what goes on under the umbrella of foreign aid. Foreign aid needs to be an issue whose disposition is determined directly by the voting public.

Michael Savage Rules!

Dear Frenchman,
A little of what you have to say is true, the rest is misguided arrogance. Your country did give us some invaluable support during the revolutionary war. The supplies helped out greatly, but the French didn't truly help us out until they figured out there was a very good chance that we were going to win. One must also mention that OUR example led to the French revolution and gave YOU a free democratic society (even if you all support socialistic ideals).
You only give excuses for WWI and WWII which is a disgrace. I thank your country for helping us in the revolutionary war and you insult us by not even mentioning the 112,432 Americans who DIED helping your country fight off the Germans. I guess there blood isn't good enough for you! As for WWII, how can 2 countries be allies if one is conquered? The portion of you country that remained free for a short time after your surrender didn't even have your warships escape to allied waters and help fight the Germans on other fronts! Give me a break (please read the rise and fall of the third reich - and then you can comment on fact that you are clueless about right now).
What we in this forum ask you and that Napolean guy is to GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF [the sand] AND SEE THE REAL WORLD. I say the real world because you all live somewhere else thinking that Saddam will disarm and that inspections will work. Get real man. If you honestly believe that the inspections will work you have a room temperature IQ and should not be out in public unsupervised!

Who is Michael Savage?

After 9/11, the favorite Liberal game was to try and find a way to blame President Bush for "not knowing" or "not acting" or "knowing but not acting". Imagine the howls of outrage if it became known that the attacks could have been prevented before they happened!

Fast forward a couple of years. Bush & Co. have stated quite clearly that there is danger to our country from Iraq. He has stated his intention to protect our country and our people (even those who blast him with every word they say). This course of action may even cost him the presidency when his term is up. Still, he is doing what he has to do...so that I can sleep at night in relative safety and definite freedom.

I am in no hurry to send American soldiers to foreign lands. My heart bleeds when I think of what they will have to face (just watch the first 20 minutes of Private Ryan for a clue). I do not support this war lightly, nor do I support it because I'm a war-monger. It's not going to be "fun".

I support our leadership and our soldiers for the simple reason that they are prepared to do whatever they must to make sure that we never suffer the kind of destruction that WMD's can cause.

The Liberals were mad at Bush for not preventing 9/11. Now they're angry because he's trying to prevent something worse.

Right on, MickieD. I see this war as a necessary evil. No, I don't know every stinking little detail but I choose to trust my American President. Is it likely our entire military is being deployed on the strength of RUMORS???? How dare the anti-American Americans act as though they have a monopoly on morality and angst.

1. Courage is being afraid and doing it anyway.
2. Integrity is doing the right thing, even when no one is looking.
3. Character is doing the right thing, even without pom-poms and cheers.
4. Cowardice is calling names so one doesn't have to examine one's own character to locate one's integrity in order to do something courageous.

Just call them chips. That's what the English do. Evidently no self respecting Englishman will order anything french.

hey french(man?),as you so put it after 12 years of failing to disarm iraq and failing maybe its time to take a different approach ? an what are you an the other cheese eating surrender monkeys gonna do about it? you can go ahead an debate it for the next 12 years

Who is Michael Savage???? He has a syndicated radio show that is heard over 300 stations across the country. His book is #1 on the New York Times best seller list. He's going to have his own show on MSNBC starting next Saturday afternoon. The guy is great! Listen to him and buy the book. His motto is Borders, Language, Culture! I recommend him to everyone! Get with it and buy the book. I've already lent mine out 3 times.

Buffy

SUBJECT:
Win Without War' Releases New Talking Points March 3.2003
_________________________________________

( My Comments inside lines in Brackets )
_________________________________________

1) We can disarm Saddam Hussein without invading Iraq. Tough inspections with cooperation from U.S. intelligence agencies would be the most prudent and effective way available to neutralize whatever threat Saddam Hussein poses.
__________________________________________

( This is no longer about Saddams possession of WMD, when the entire theater of War shifted from Afghanistan to surrounding Iraq the clear message urgency, statement after statement of Al-Quaede
cells forming in Iraq,)

House of Representatives House Joint Resolution 114, Hastert, Gephardt

Resolution 144, paragraphs 3 through 5

3.
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens,and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
4.
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11,2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international
terrorist organizations;
5.
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
__________________________________________

2) A U.S.-led invasion of Iraq plays into the hands of Osama bin Laden and other terrorists. It would be the greatest terrorist recruitment tool that Osama bin Laden could imagine.

___________________________________________

(Speculation, hypothetical conclusion the statement can not be supported by even one single incident
no such proof exists of Iraq terrorist, )
____________________________________________

3) We can't control war. Experts warn that an attack on Iraq could seriously undermine and destabilize regimes in the region whose populations are overwhelmingly opposed to an invasion. One of these, Pakistan, has nuclear weapons.
_____________________________________________

(Speculation, hypothetical conclusion, The Gulf War as with Afghanistan proves this statement has absolutely no merit what so ever, as Far as Pakistan on this very day March 1, 2003 The Second in Command to Osama Bin Laden was arrested by Pakistan police Khalid Shaikh Mohammed Planned the 9-11 attack )
_____________________________________________

4) What happens after war? Are we prepared to occupy Iraq for years to come? Are we prepared to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars occupation will consume?
5) The administration hasn't convinced our allies or the American public. According to a recent poll:
- 59 % of Americans believe the president should give the United Nations more time;
- 63% said Washington should not act without the support of its allies;
- Americans remain much more concerned about the threat from al Qaeda terrorism than from a threat from Iraq.( New York Times/CBS Poll Feb 14)
6) Many innocents will be killed or injured. Estimates of casualities run into the hundreds of thousands from injuries and more from disease. Half of the Iraqi population is under 15 years old.
7) Young Americans will die in battle. Will there be hand-to-hand combat in Baghdad? Will chemical or biological weapons be used? How long will the conflict last? War should be the very last resort.
_______________________________________________

( 4, 5, 6, 7 All Speculation, hypothetical conclusion, no such evidence exist to date that disarmament can be achieved by any manner stated herein or executed thus far, the cited diplomatic means has no relevance by virtue of the weapons inspection which are not diplomatic means they are weapons inspections The above talking points have no basic fact to support them it is open and obvious paragraphs 1 through 7 are of no merit therefore dismissed )

Who do you people defending this man?!?!?!?!? The slogans on your peace protester signs give away your very transparent agenda--you just hate Bush. If Clinton were doing this, you'd have no problem with it. But Clinton would never do it, and that is EXACTLY why we HAD a 9/11!!!!!

WHEN WILL YOU PEOPLE GET IT INTO YOUR HEADS THAT EVIL MUST BE DESTROYED OR IT WILL DESTROY US?!?!?!? Go back and study Hitler's rise to power in Nazi Germany, and look up Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill.

4) Do you think they are going to share their war plans or even their after war plans with you and me? To assume that because they aren't talking about it means there isn't a plan is itself speculation.

5) We have right now at least 35 nations behind us supporting a war in Iraq. How many do you think we need? All those insisting on the UN need to back up and check--the function of the UN is not to protect the American people. That is the job of GW Bush. LET'S GET TO IT!!! Let's stop [fooling] around with these anti-American and anti-Semite people who have no interest in protecting Americans! Why should our self defense depend on what Russia or Syria or China or North Korea think? WAKE UP AMERICAL!!!

6) How many innocents has Saddam killed? How many more will die if we do NOT act?!?!?!? Are you willing to take the chance?

7) Not to sound callous, but I believe though Americans will die in a war, far fewer will die than if Saddam is allowed to remain in power. Young Americans die in car crashes every day. Young Americans have died in the many al Quaeda attacks on our military around the world in just the last ten years. Young Americans died in the WTC, in the Pentagon, and on the plan that crashed in Pennsylvania.

Most differences of opinion come from differences of information. Given the exact same information, a very, very large majority of people would form the same opinion. Thus, the people in europe who say that Americans are un-informed are probably right. Americans are notoriously un-educated. These Americans are the ones who haven't read 1984 and are un-alarmed and the pro-saddam label given to the pacifist. These Americans are unaware that Nazi Germany had popular support. These Americans are unaware of other people's positions so badly that they reflexively spew "You believe that America is the Great Satin" rhetoric (Satan misspelled on purpose... actual quote from other message board."

I disagree in part Angry Liberal. Many americans are un-informed when it comes to the news and many other issues, but so are many of the europeans. The fact is that many people can be influenced by what is being said to them. That is why the majority of Pakistanis still believe that he Israilis were behind 9/11 and that the warned the Jews not to come into work that day. We all know that to be a lie, but they believe it because that is what is being taught at the madrasas and mosques. You can say the same about Americans being told stuff and they buy it, but we have the advantage of hearing all sides, from the truth to the insanly idiotic. I have read 1984 and can see the validity in the points, but I also agree with the war on terror and Iraq. We need to get rid of some of these regimes in order to defend our citizens. We just need to make sure that the government does not overstep its bounds and limit our freedoms. The politicians need to remember that they represent the will of the people, not their own or their political party (or campaign financer..etc).

Freedom to express opinion is the very base of what this country is based on.

Uneducated and misinformed opinions on either side are dangerous.

But in my mind the MOST dangerous are the opinions of the left who are against this war because they either:

1) Simply refuse to FACE facts, and just hate George Bush, letting that ideology get in the way of any educated, rational thought. You see this in the slogans of many of the "Peace" protesters.

2) KNOW the facts, but again, hate Bush so much that they actually WANT him to fail, and are willing to put many thousands or even millions of lives in peril so that THEIR party, and THEIR guy can take power again in the Senate, and in the White House. Those who hold this view and would silence others' voices are THE most dangerous.

dolfinwriter is right. the minute that we allow our hatred for someone overshadow what is right is when disaster happens. The people against Bush need to get over the election and other personal vendettas and do what is right. I think they are pissed that he has proven them wrong and is not the bumbling idiot that they thought he was. His approval rating is going to go through the roof when we win war and should help him get re-elected. Time will tell..

Great fun and games. I assume none of us commentators are in any real danger of getting killed in this conflict (except by another commentator), so we can enjoy the polemics. But I'm concerned for those who may, including my children when they come of age in seven to ten years. What I would like to see is a website where the direct issues are rationally and comprehensively stated, as Powell and Blair have often done, and supporting and disssenting arguments (preferably well-reasoned) along with references to the primary sources of any supposed facts are given so that those who wish to make well-informed and timely decisions or rufutations can do so. Does anyone know of such a website? It would be of great benefit to those in the world who genuinely want to understand American and British motives. Living in Japan, I can assure you that most Japanese I have spoken with have very little understanding of American motives.

SUBJECT:

A MESSAGE TO HANS BLIX,
AND THE UNITED NATIONS WEAPONS INSPECTION TEAM,

YOU CAN STOP LOOKING FOR SADDAM'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

SADDAM HUSSEIN IS THE WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION
SADDAM HUSSEIN IS THE WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION

_______________________
IRAN IRAQ WAR
800,000 died
Estimates 1.5 million died.
Iran reports that 5,000 Iranian POWs (1981-1988) are unaccounted for by Iraq.

Iraqi fighter-attack aircraft dropped mustard-filled and tabun-filled 250 kilogram bombs and mustard-filled 500 kilogram bombs on Iranian targets.
Iraq installed spray tanks on an unknown number of helicopters or dropped 55-gallon drums filled with agents from low altitudes. These chemical weapons included
H-series blister
G-series nerve agents.
Iraq built these agents into various offensive munitions including rockets, artillery shells, aerial bombs, and warheads on the Al Hussein Scud missile variant.
_______________________
INVASION OF KUWAIT 1990-1991
February 1991, Hussein, fire to over 700 Kuwaiti oil wells,
Final casualties 33,000 Kuwaitis killed or captured,
600 Kuwaiti and other nationals arrested by Iraqi forces during the occupation of Kuwait in 1990; _______________________

GULF WAR 1991
234 Allied dead,
85,000 and 100,000 Iraqi soldiers killed.
_______________________
IRAQ and KURD WAR UPRISING 1988-1991

4,000 Kurdish villages had been destroyed;
conservative estimate more than 100,000 rural Kurds had died in Anfal alone;
3.5 million people and 10 percent of Halabja's citizens, more than 40,000 in all.

Saddam's forces used chemicals at 281 locations.

Among them were over 100,000 Kurds who "disappeared" during the 1988 and 1989 "Anfal Operations";
The cases of hundreds of thousands of detainees who "disappeared" in previous years remain unresolved. several thousand Shi'a Muslims arrested in the southern provinces of Basra, al-Nasirayya and al-'Amara in the aftermath of the March 1991 uprising.
Kurds, forcing an estimated 450,000 Kurds to the Turkish border and more than a million to Iran.

_________________________
IRAQ USED BIOLOICAL WARFARE AGENT ROTAVIRUS,
AMOUNG OTHER MIXED CHEMICAL AGENTS,MUSTARD,SARIN AND VX
AGANST THE KURDS UPRISING IN 1991

Rotavirus Anfal Operations
During the unsuccessful Kurdish uprising of March 1991, the Kurds captured huge quantities of Iraqi government records in the secret police buildings in the major towns and cities. 18 tones of documents, contained in 847 boxes with a total number of pages estimated as over four million, are now in the USA

1. Oral testimony from over 350 eyewitnesses or survivals;
2. Forensic evidence from areas of mass graves; and
3. Huge amount of captured Iraqi documents.

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
Amnesty International

Saddam's ruthless quest for power knows no humanity.

I think we've wasted enough diplomatic and military resources to preserve countries that do nothing but serve as a breeding grounds for hostile radical moslems, recycled Utopianism and anti-American venom. When Moslems begin taking over their countries, and they will (if history is a guide), and as they plea for help I will lean toward the east, giving them the flying finger of fuck-u-ism. After their takeovers, I support a campaign to bomb them into wall-to-wall rubble. Adios, France and Germany, you perennial pains-in-the-[tail].

For a better picture of how this could happen, check out Jean Raspail's "Camp of the Saints," which he prophetically wrote 20-25 years ago.

It's amazing how the liberal left and their agenda of political correctness is decimating this country. If we have anyone to blame as to why we are in the situation we are it is ourselves for allowing PCism to overtake the American mindset.

You know, Frenchie is right in part -- a lot of us are brainwashed -- BY THE LEFTIST Hollywood elite and biased media.

And right on, Dolfinwriter. I believe that a large majority of the anti-war activists have not taken the time and energy to educate themselves about what is really going on in the world. I can speak for many of my peers in a small mountain town in Colorado who buy into every damn thing their favorite musician, star or news network has to say -- no matter how blatantly the report is slanted.

Had anyone taken the time to read OBL's fatwah (published 2/23/98) they would have realized that Islam's goal is to conquer the world. (Koran, Sura 9:5) "Fight and slay the pagans (infidels) wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleauger them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem of war."

In his fatwah OBL goes on to say, "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it." But try and get this message across now and you're labeled racist and anti-Muslim.

I am so...sick of these pansy...politically correct, let's appease the world at any cost idiots who are destroying our country. In watching Hannity and Colmes a few weeks ago, Sean Hannity asked his guest (I forget who the idiot was) what would justify a war against Irag. To my utter shock he said and I quote, "Let them attack us first."

That my dear Frenchmen is called being BRAINWASHED.

I would like to close with an excerpt from an essay I wrote eight weeks after 9/11:

"...Confusion is a technique sometimes employed by members of society with hidden agendas; i.e., the government, the media, religions, even common people. Confusion is designed to manipulate its victims into a state of paralysis. If you are confused, will you act? Probably not. You will remain idle, inactive. Confusion creates mediocrity, a state of life where you amble along content with a zombie-like existence, basically letting others control your future. Whatever happens, happens. For too long and far too often, Americans have learned to run and hide behind the burque of “political correctness.” For too long Americans have run to this lame theory for shelter rather than exercising their brains by thinking for themselves and challenging mediocrity.

Confusion breeds bad judgment. Confusion lessens the ability to discern right from wrong. Confusion quiets the masses and places them under control that is not their own. Truth means clarity and doing the right thing even if the road ahead is difficult and ugly. Battered women must wage a war before leaving their abusive homes to become free. Our beloved country gained its independence from Great Britain through what? Dare I say it? War. For the same reason, we must now wage a war against confusion if we are ever to free ourselves from the evil that has attacked this nation.

War, unfortunately, is a necessary evil, and a face that has reared its ugly head yet again. There can be no mistaking that this declaration of war was made directly upon the USA and all Americans at home and abroad. To the anti-war protesters, to those who think that America somehow deserves this, I ask you “Would you let an intruder decimate your entire family and your home before determining whether it was politically correct to defend yourself?”

While the thought of moving peacefully through this tumultuous time is a noble goal, it is not realistic and those who think that it can be achieved within our present lifetime are delusional. To risk doing nothing would definitely mean the end of our country as we know it, quite possibly the world. Furthermore, to idly sit by in quiet acceptance of a horribly unimaginable deed, means that those who do so are as guilty as the perpetrators. It is frightening to imagine what might have happened, had the world chosen to ignore Adolph Hitler. Liberty requires action. Justice requires patience. Unity requires courageous people defiantly resolute in their pursuit, unwavering and confident until the end."

Very eloquently put Mountain Girl. It is up to us to educate ourselves in the truth so we are not left confused. Military tactics work on the effect of confusion. That is why we want to attack the command and control facilities first. If you can cut off the troops from the leaders, confusion is created and victory is easier.
Political correctness and the removal of God from our society is tearing down the foundations that our country was developed on. The government was created "of the people, for the people" and I feel that it is time that the voice of the majority of the Americans is heard.

My God. I've read through the comments above (and the original post, to boot), and I'm utterly stunned. It's funny how all you folks get upset when somebody European calls Americans "imperialist pigs," but then you have *no* problem whatsoever with pegging all Europeans as whiny, money-hungry bad guys and all American anti-war protesters as hippy-dippy idiots singing "Give Peace a Chance."

Well, I'm one of the 50% of this country who *doesn't* want us to go to war, and my reasons happen to be at *least* as valid as the "patriotic" crap above:

1. My dad always taught me not to stick my hand in a hornets' nest (which, admittedly, is probably what I'm doing right now by posting this). Regardless of our intentions in this war, what we are doing is just about guaranteed to make the Middle East explode into flames. Do you want that? Are we "liberating" the Iraqis just to nuke them two years from now? Does anybody remember Somalia? Read or seen anything about the battle in Mogadishu? A group of highly-trained Special Forces troops go into a bustling, partly pro-American city in a Muslim country to grab a handful of people...but the population, who the U.S. is ostensible there to protect and rescue from the clutches of the evil warlord in control of most of the region, don't see it as a rescue, but as an invasion, us against them. Mark my words: what happened there is going to happen in the Middle East, except on a regional scale. All it takes is one child or pregnant woman caught in the crossfire, and the Iraqi populace suddenly won't be as grateful to us anymore.

We are playing right into bin Laden's hands, here -- by attacking a country that has yet to attack us, we're going to be seen as the aggressor, and people will flock to the anti-American, anti-West groups led by people like bin Laden. Heck, they won't even be the "bad guys" -- they'll be Saudis, or Jordanians, or Pakistanis. Think I'm wrong? Think back to Vietnam -- we went in with the best of intentions, to fight the Communist menace and save the people of Indochina, and yet we ended up fighting a bloody, mind-numbing war where we couldn't tell the difference between the enemy and the civilians. Call me a pessimist, but just because we're going into Iraq with the commendable (and I *do* think it's commendable, just unrealistic) aim of freeing the Iraqis doesn't mean that that's how it's going to turn out.

2. Speaking of "liberation," do you know what the makeup of Iraq is? The country is split just about right down the middle between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims. Now, with that in mind, do you seriously think we're *ever* going to allow the people of Iraq free elections? The risk is too great -- we could end up with another pre-Musharraf Pakistan (he took over because the free people of Pakistan elected an Islamist government, remember) or a post-Shah Iran (which is governed by Sunnis, and which is probably the next country on our list of people to topple, anyway). We're not going to free the Iraqis, we're going to put somebody stable in charge, whether it's a U.S. general or a dictator similar to Saddam Hussein. We don't want freedom and democracy in Iraq, just stability -- it's all about order. (If you want proof of the way it's going to go, look at what our allies in Iraq have been saying lately -- *they* don't want us taking control under those circumstances any more than I do.)

Beyond that, there's the matter of Turkey. We're busily wooing the Turks into letting us fight from their territory, and I'm damn glad that they're saying 'no' (although that may merely be a matter of dollar signs, unfortunately). Why? Because Turkey has a history of oppressing, torturing, and murdering the Kurds, our allies in Northern Iraq, that's just as long as Saddam Hussein's. Look around a little bit online -- the documentation's out there, believe me (the human rights violations are one of the main reasons the European Union won't let Turkey in). If Turkey has an opportunity to grab the oil-rich areas in the north of Iraq, they'll do it; they've *already* taken territory in the area, before the war's officially started. There is a very good chance that the Kurds will back the U.S. in fighting Saddam Hussein, only to have to turn around and fight the Turkish army. And personally, *I* don't want that. We've screwed the Kurds over long enough, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if we did it again.

3. And yes, I mentioned it: the oil. No, this war isn't all about oil -- like I said, it's about stability. I do find it interesting, however, that where the U.S. is concerned, you all scoff when anyone suggests that oil *might* be a factor...but scream and point at the French because *they* happen to have oil interests in the region. Please. Sure, we might be going in there for reasons that aren't tied to money -- and the French might well be against us going in there for the same damn kind of reasons. If you're unwilling accept the possibility that that might be the case, then you're a hypocrite and no better than the anti-war activists you're railing against who carry "No Blood for Oil" signs. (Oh, and there were quite a few U.S. companies who sold Saddam Hussein arms and materials to make weapons, as well, before anybody decides to cry "foul" and point *that* finger at the French -- just ask Donald Rumsfeld about that one.)

4. Am I just imagining things, or are we here in the U.S. in the middle of a huge recession? This is *not* the best time to go gallivanting around the globe, righting supposed wrongs, folks -- not when unemployment is up (and yes, it went down after Christmas, but it always seems to), states are having to cut school budgets left and right, and insurance costs are going through the roof. The $60-$100 billion we're about to blow on this war could be *much* better used at home, fixing things that people here need RIGHT NOW than trying to play geopolitics with guns. And don't think that that guesstimate the White House is giving of $100 billion is any kind of a cap, by the way; wars, as anybody who looks in the history books occasionally will know, tend to get expensive.

5. Since we're on the subject of money, let's look at the long term, shall we? The pre-emptive invasion of Iraq sets a *really* dangerous precedent, which is that we're going to feel free to go after anybody we want, with little to no provocation. Sorry, but that just doesn't work for me. I was for going into Afghanistan, because there was provocation; here, there's a handful of shadowy linkages thrown out by Colin Powell. If you look closely, there are closer ties between Saddam Hussein and George Bush than there are Hussein and bin Laden (whose recent speech, by the way, reads more like "get your weapons and wait for the infidel to start his war, *then* move in and hit him" than it does a gesture of support to Saddam). I think it's also worth taking a look back at the books: who were the last major powers to invade countries that posed no real threat, all the while *claiming* they were doing it in the name of defense? Give up? I'm talking about Germany under Hitler and the U.S.S.R. under Stalin. Is this the kind of company we want to keep?

Now, while I'm willing to give Bush and company the benefit of the doubt in the "motivation" department (who knows? maybe George really *does* want to avenge his dad?), I tend to believe that the motives at work here are actually those of people like Dep. Sec. of Defense Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. What these people want is no less than a complete restructuring of the Middle East, and they think that toppling Iraq will do it. Now, that aside, what this precedent means is that we're going to go after Syria, and Libya, and Iran, and maybe even Saudi Arabia before this mess is done -- we're talking *decades*, here. If you're for going into Iraq, you'd better be prepared to follow our leaders into a new era of near-constant warfare, both here and in the Middle East. I mentioned the effects of an invasion earlier, but think about what would happen if Hezbollah, say, were to decide an American invasion of Iraq would be the perfect time to launch an attack on Israel (and they've threatened to do just that). If Israel retaliates, Hezbollah's hosts in Syria could decide they have to defend themselves, and all of a sudden our troops will be surrounded by a war on all sides. Israel are our allies, so we're not likely to hang them out to dry.

I don't like war. I'm no pacifist, and I'll fight if I see a need, if I believe in the cause, but I think it's downright stupid to risk the massive loss of life that a prolonged war in the Middle East could cause. I support our troops, believe me, and I've got friends and relatives over there as I type this -- I'd just like to see them come home alive.

5. I've seen the term "containment" thrown around a lot lately, but it's nothing new. No, "containment" is *not* what the Allies tried in WWII -- that was "appeasement," in a war between almost equals. With Iraq, we have so much military superiority that war itself isn't even the problem (as I hinted at above, it's the effects elsewhere); we are in a very good position to keep Saddam Hussein exactly where he is for as long as it takes, and for a *lot* less money than a costly war. It's worked before, and in very, very similar circumstances -- remember Muammar Qaddafi? Anybody? There was a time not very long ago when the world was convinced that Qaddafi was going to develop nuclear capability and wipe the U.S. off the map. And yet Ronald Reagan didn't stage a large-scale invasion, but rather forced him to back down and crippled his nuclear weapons program...and where is he now? Heck, his son's running the U.N. Human Rights Commission, and that's the biggest joke *I've* heard in a while.

The NY Times recently pointed out a similar case -- in the '50s, Eisenhower had to deal with Gamal Abdel Nasser, a man *much* more charismatic and terrifying than Saddam Hussein, and he chose the same route, that of containment. And guess what? Nasser's gone, a footnote in history to everybody but the Egyptians, who now happen to be at least *sort of* friendly towards us, and that's the same road Qaddafi's on right now. How's that for "no such evidence" that disarmament can work? Neither of these guys has been a threat for quite some time, and it didn't take a war to get it done.

My point is this: containment *can* work, and it *has* worked in the past. Time is on our side, and we can use it to do this without killing a lot of people and alienating the world. Saddam Hussein is 66 this year. In ten years' time, Saddam will be in his '70s, and his power will be waning. In twenty years' time, he'll be dead, and if we contain him now, he will have become irrelevant *long* before that.

---
That's my piece. I'm one of the many anti-war Americans that you *don't* hear about, apparently (or, at least, that you don't talk about). Am I refusing to face facts? Sorry, don't think so. I don't care for Bush, but I didn't care much for Clinton, either. The facts that disturb me are the above. I'm not a pacifist, and I love my country (but wait, how can that be, when protesting a war is obviously "un-American", according to folks like yourselves?) -- I just don't want to see us bankrupt my children's future economically *or* politically.

I find it infuriating, by the way, that *all* the author of the point-by-point comments on Win Without War's talking points can find to say is "speculation, hypothetical conclusion" -- sure, maybe it's speculation, but that's what *all* of this drivel posted on this board is. Do you know what's going to happen in a war? Really? I don't, but I don't like the probabilities. Not even the planners at the Pentagon know what's going to happen, and they've admitted as much -- their scenarios range from minimal casualties and a quick handover of power to a prolonged house-to-house battle. If you're going to attack somebody else's points, you're going to have to do better than dismiss them outright. I appreciate your listing of all of Saddam Hussein's atrocities over the years -- I think that you should add, though, that the U.S. encouraged him in his war with Iran, gave him the materials to create the chemical weapons he used against the Iranians, the Kurds, and the Shi'ite rebels, and propped him up for more than a decade despite overwhelming evidence that he was murdering his own people. Y'know, since we're talking facts and all. Funny -- you're upset that Saddam's gassed and massacred the Kurds, but not bothered that the Turks, who've done just as bad to the Kurds both in Turkey and Iraq, will probably be given free rein in what *should* be Kurdistan? (The hundreds of billions of dollars post-war Iraq will require is hardly speculation, by the way; do you think food, medicines, and building materials grow on trees?)

Let's get this straight once and for all: *no* liberal/anti-war person in this country likes Saddam Hussein. The man's a butcher and a monster, and deserves to be taken down. I do not believe, however, that we're going about it in the right way. Want to take down a dictator? Work from within. Support the Kurds, support the underground resistance movement, and promote both capitalism and the free market in Iraq -- that's the *only* way, in my view, to get Saddam out of power without a war. If he's going to be taken down, it has to be from within. Look at China and the U.S.S.R., two of the biggest enemies the U.S. has ever had, brought down (or at least brought closer to the rest of the world, in China's case) not by guns, but by Levis and Coca-Cola; American culture is the best weapon we've got, sad as it makes me to admit it.

The youth of the Middle East aren't born fanatical extremists -- their environment, being surrounded by war and death and hunger and hatred, plays a part. If we really want to make a change, we need to work on helping out the everyday people of Iraq, not bomb them and destroy their houses and water supplies; every 15-year-old kid who's watched his home turned to rubble by "benign" bombardment is one more recruit for people like bin Laden, who *prey* on that kind of horror and hatred. Show them that there's another option, and I guarantee that at least a few will take it. Look at Iran -- they're a member of the "Axis of Evil," and yet the young people of the country are fighting and protesting for religious and personal freedom; why aren't we supporting them? You can't bomb somebody into loving your country and everything it stands for; we've tried that already, with the "hearts and minds" approach in Vietnam.

And to the people who've mentioned/insinuated that the French military hasn't been worth a damn since the French Revolution: I'd like to remind you of a small gentleman named Napoleon, who just happened to conquer and unite all of Europe in about ten years. Sure, maybe he lost in the end, but so did Hitler, and nobody claims the Germans couldn't fight in WWII, do they? Oh, and we didn't "take over in Vietnam" to save the French -- the French were fighting to hold onto their colonial possessions (and lost 74,000 soldiers trying), *not* fighting Communism; that was strictly our battle. (And we lost Vietnam, too, you'll note.)

-Jeremy Hart

Posted by: mountain girl on March 4, 2003 12:35 PM
FINALY A VOICE OF REASON !!!
KUDOS MOUNTAIN GIRL

Can anyone say, LONG WINDED! It can be tiring to read all that.
Jeremy, you do have some points and you are perfectly entitled to them, but I disagree with containment. How do you contain a nation? He can, will (and probably has) smuggled WMD across his borders and it would be impossible for us to watch every square foot of that border to stop it. The sanctions imposed on Iraq by the UN are a joke. Saddam can get most of anything he wants and used all that oil for food/medacine money to build all those palaces. People say we are killing the children, saddam is doing it. He has the way to help them, but he won't.
I'm going to leave the rest alone..

TO YOU FRANCE GERMANY AND RUSSIA YOU ARE ABOUT TO BE EXPOSED FOR THE SYSTAMIC RAPE OF THE IRAQI OIL REVENUES
DONT EVEN THINK FOR A SECOND YOUR FOOLING ANY ONE
THE EVIDENCE OF FRACE GERMANY AND RUSSIA STEELING FUNDS FROM IRAQ OVER THE LAST 12 YEARS WILL BE IN FRONT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD VERY VERY SOON

YOU HAVE RAPED THE FOOD FOR OIL PROGRAM ANLONG WITH YOUR FELLOW UN MEMBERS AND AMERICA WILL EXPOSE YOUR CRIMES !!!

FRANCE HAS BEEN RAPEING IRAQS FOOD FOR OIL FUNDS FOR 12 YEARS AMERICA SHALL RAIN JUSTICE DOWN ON FRANCE, GERMANY AND RUSSIA FOR YOUR EVIL EVIL CRIMES

S. A. G. (Stupid A-S Geniuses}

3/4/2003 9:49 PM

ëHollywood Actors Raise McCarthyism BOYCOTT Specter on Iraqí

McCarthyism expert Ellen Schrecker, professor of history at Yeshiva University in New York,

I came across this article (above) on Yahoo and had to laugh about how these ëcelebrity geniusesí are now running scared ñ poor babies!!. These ëcelebrityí anti war protestors enjoy a public platform to share their inane ideas that we ëcommonersí can only dream about. And thatís the crux of the matter right there ñ they get to stand on the media soap box and spout their venom at will.

I am much amused when these ëentertainersí run scared because we copy a CD or download an MP3. I am much amused when these ëentertainersí are so scared of being ëblack listedí

But, what is so critical in all this is that none of these articles mention the real deal about whatís going on ñ and that is the threat of a national boycott against these ëentertainment geniusesí. Just as they have a right to speak in opposition to war, we have the right to boycott ALL of their products (and their sponsorís products as well!).

And, thatís what I intend to do!!! To boycott ALL of their music / movies / TV shows / DVDís / videos and to spread this information to all 357 folks on my e-mail address list. I am quite sure that we can get this thing going on an international basis in no time whatsoever.

If these ìexpertsî choose to be the Jane Fondaís of 2003, so be it!! Contrarily, let the boycotts fall where they may!!!!!!

Thanks,

WEO in MD

Right on WEO! You said it my brother/sister! We should organize a campaign that will attack them where it really hurts: their wallets.

Is there someone out there who has a wealth of information about the entertainment industry? For example, when would be the best time to conduct such a campaign? Aren't there a lot of movie openings just before summer? Say for example opening weekend for many films is Memorial Day Weekend. We then would have enough time to get the word out about an international boycott for it to really have an effect. Ideas anyone??

On the same topic, I composed a letter to the editor yesterday directed to the leftist Hollywood elite. I'd like to share it with you all. Thinking of sending it to LA and NYC papers (if they'll print it). Any other suggestions would be much appreciated.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE LEFTIST HOLLYWOOD ELITE

Don't presume to speak for me in your anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-American diatribes. I am an anti-politically correct, anti-appeasement, anti-celebrities who use their high profiles to make the world think they know a damn thing about politics and national security, young, vibrant American woman who can think and speak for herself. Don't you dare speak for me.

You demand freedom, but do any of you defend it? You are perplexed as to how 9-11 could have occurred; yet are smitten by political correctness fortified by 8 long years of the Clinton Administration, which allowed our national security to be dealt a lethal blow. You demand selflessness of others, but are too selfish to set the example. You want change, but are too comfortable to "be the change you want to see in the world." (Gandhi)

Consider this a promise: you will not receive anymore of my minutiae of hard-earned dollars. It has long been apparent who you are and I will not contribute to your selfish, hypocritical, self-effacing, auto-racist ideologies. I know your names because you were stupid enough to sign the petition. No more movies, no more TV shows, no more concerts, no more purchasing of products you may endorse. I may be just one person, but there's a whole slew of my American kindred spirits that are doing the exact same thing. Where are the voices of opposition in your group? Perhaps you've become that which you claim to despise: a McCarthyist clique that forbids the dissent of any of your members, lest they become black-listed and unable to find work.

I believe that everyone deserves to have their own opinion, differing as they may be, but when you presume to speak for the majority of Americans, you're stepping on my toes. When you manipulate your celebrity status to make the "weaker links" in the collective American mind think that you know anything about politics, you're tampering with the future of my country. When you say you're embarrassed to be an American, (Jessica Lange) I say, then leave. When you say this country was founded on a sham and you become choked with pride at seeing naked homosexuals and lesbians burning the American flag, (Janeane Garafolo) you make me vomit. Ever set foot in my town and I will spit in your face.

Put your money where your mouth is and go to Iraq and serve as a human shield. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot. You only tell your loyal (and mindless) followers what they should do. You sure can talk, but you're above the walk.

I think to many people put to much creedance in hollywood. I think that if there were another attack on the U.S. you would be the first to cry that the government wasn't proecting you I think you don't care about the war in Iraq you just don't like Bush and don't like to see him have any success and in time of security that is ill. I think if you knew how horrible Saddam is you wouldn't speek out and look so supid. I think that the U.S. should send in more inspector about 300,000 inspectors dressed in tanks and jet fighter. I think that you should use your power to tell the the world the we don't hate the people of Iraq and the Middle East it would be much more productive. Glen

MOUNTAIN GIRL FOR PRESIDENT!
you go girl, you have my support. Send that letter to all the papers and see which ones have the cajones to print it.
I heard yesterday that a gallop poll stated that most Americans would watch a movie/show/etc that contained an actor/actress that had differing political views. I think it was a ploy to get the rest of America to give up and go to the movie anyway. I am doing the same as you and I refuse to watch any video/show that portrays these moronic, yellow, freedom destroying peaceniks. BOYCOTT THEM ALL. It is time they learned that we are fed up with them.
By the way, that Garafolo idiot said that protesting the 98 bombing of Iraq "wasn't hip." Once again, the democrats show how un-american they are...

Hey Justin,

Thanks for the support but I think that's one job I wouldn't want.

I'm sure that poll was the biased media's ploy to support the anti-war sentiment. It's not so bad they have differing opinions but it's like "weo" said, "they just spout their venom at will." Whether we want to hear it or not. And people who don't think and educate themselves as much as we do, believe every damn thing they hear to be true.

I also notice people around me make their beliefs be known from out of nowhere. Last week I was riding the bus to the ski area and the busdriver was giving the snow report and facts about the resort and from out of the blue says, "War is not the answer. Just thought I'd let you know my political views." WHAT IS THAT? Why do the leftists feel compelled to interject such comments during the most inappropriate times? I'm sure that's nothing people vacationing there wanted to hear.

I did hear Garafolo's comments. Actually if you go to the link that Scott Ott has set up: www.hollywoodhalfwits.com you'll find a lot of juicy tidbits of celebrity gossip. They never cease to amaze me.

Honestly, I don't think any paper is going to print my letter.

See what the Iraqis in the U.S. think at

www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/314yltit.asp

Mountain Girl,
I have seen that hollywoodhalfwits.com site and I was amazed that I could laugh and get mad at the same time. It just goes to show the education that these idiots have. I'm sorry, but an acting degree doesn't make you an expert on geopolitics or on economics (just like that moron richard gere at the central park 9/11 memorial).
I am also sick of hearing people say that the policy of deficit spending is bad. Yes Bush is pushing the deficit by 300 billion, but the only way to get out of a recession is to deficit spend. It takes a strong president to recognize that and to do it.
One more thing, I have lived in 9 states and you are an example of why I consider Colorado home.
As I stated in another forum, I voluteered at the WTC recovery effort for a week and every time people spout off that the war is not just, I remember the Fire Fighters raking through debris looking for pieces. I also remember the bags of parts and the flag draped memorial for those larger parts that were pulled out...., the war IS and ALWAYS will be just!

Jeremy!!!!! You're right, Napoleon did quite well for france....because he was a Corsican and not a frenchman.

The French have ALWAYS been traitors. They were traitors against their own country when they joined the Axis (Germany) during WWII. They were traitors to humanity when they helped ship the Jews to the death camps.

Only a handful of patriots have ever existed in France (post WWI). Namely the French Underground and their exiled leadership during WWII.

That is the root of the envy they show everyday. They are STILL pissed that we kicked the shit out of their fleet during WWII. The French still do not understand why they cannot switch sides in the middle of a war.

If Hitler had won, they would still have their noses firmly attached to Hitlerís A$$.

They allow genocide in Africa.

They proliferate WMD throughout despotic regimes.

They feel marginalized when they are not in power, so they switch to the side that gives them the most power.

They have chosen a side. I hope we, as a society do not EVER forgive them.

[QUOTE]
My God. I've read through the comments above (and the original post, to boot), and I'm utterly stunned. It's funny how all you folks get upset when somebody European calls Americans "imperialist pigs," but then you have *no* problem whatsoever with pegging all Europeans as whiny, money-hungry bad guys and all American anti-war protesters as hippy-dippy idiots singing "Give Peace a Chance."
-Jeremy Hart
[END QUOTE]
Americans are Imperialists?????

No wonder they are disinformed, they do not even know the definition of the word 'Imperialist' or 'Imperialism'.

Justin,

When you visited Hollywoodhalfwits.com did you see the comment made by Chrissie Hynde? She said that we deserve to get bombed and she hopes the Muslims win. Oh, and also she hates winners. My dog has more sense than these idiots.

I have to say not all celebrities and musicians are so outspoken. I am a HUGE Phish fan and I can proudly say that to every show I've every been (which is a lot, a lot) they proudly hang the American flag from the rafters of the venue, sometimes high above the stage. Only group I've ever seen that does that.

Also, during their latest tour, we went to a show in Denver just a couple weeks ago and they had nothing to say about the political turmoil in the world (which is how it should be). They did what they do best. Played incredible, amazing, heart-lifting music. (Can't even be described -- has to be experienced.) I have no idea what their political views are nor do I care. But that is what entertainers should do -- concentrate on their craft and entertain -- not enrage and alienate people. That is why we go to a show to have a good time, celebrate life and forget about world problems for a couple hours.

Colorado has a lot of free thinkers here although many plunge in the other direction, too.

People forget that we've been at war since 9-11. And not of our own choosing, I might add. Prez Bush outlined the plan back then -- that very day -- I remember the speech. How quickly they forget and think they can't be touched. I'm sure those images you witnessed are burned in your brain forever.

They say that the terrorists like to target highly symbolic American sites. And what is a more American icon than Hollywood? The Halfwits better be careful what they wish for. Karma has a funny way of coming to get 'cha!

Mountain girl,

I have a lot of contact with the public in my current job, but unless someone brings up politics or what is going on, I just do my job. I am glad that Phish decided to do what they do best and leave the rest well enough alone. We are all allowed to have our opinions and I respect that, but there is responsibility that comes with those opinions. People shouldn't just spit out stuff they heard from their favorite whoever or from their political party. I try and research what is being said and then form an opinion. If I don't know enough I admit it.

You are right that people have forgotten the fact that we have been at war since 9/11. Everyone is falling back into a sense of complacency and that is not good. We need to actively fight against terror because we cannot afford to lose. If all countries could see that and fight it on their turf, we wouldn't have near the problems that we face today. These groups have flourished in many nations (including the UK) and it is time for it to stop.

You are right also about the images burned in my brain. When I smell diesel exhaust from big machinery it reminds me of working at the WTC. I refuse to forget that day even though many of our American brothers and sisters have.

I just read that chrisie hynde thing, what a loser. Some people are so anti-whatever that they cannot think straight. She doesn't seem like she should be allowed out into public unsupervised..:) If the terrorists were smart (and that is a long shot) they would know not to attack Hollywood because they are the ones ripping the country apart (along with shredding the Constitution and trampling the Flag).

[deleted]

Mountain Girl,
We can have a successful boycott. Word has to be spread though. Links on conservative websites and such. One action that I think would be the most damaging would be to watch the Comedy Channel, NBC, CBS, and ABC for one day and write down all of their sponsers. Then contact their sponsers en mass and let them that we will not buy their products as long as they sponser shows and stations where any of the hollywood halfwits are appearing. The same message should be sent to local television and radio stations. (especially ones who play Cheryl Crowe and Pretender's vomit)

Let Blockbuster video, Media Play, Best Buy, and others know that we will not buy or rent anything in their stores unless they remove movies featuring these asswipes from their shelves.

Stage protests at movie theaters and notify the companies who operate them, like Carmike, that we will not be going to the theater unless they show movies that don't contain anti-American actors. Hell, I'd pay a box office admission to go watch an old John Wayne movie I've seen 200 times just to make a point.

Semper Fi
SGT Payne

Hey Napoleon and Frenchman,

Before the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, the French, anticipating victory over the English, proposed to cut off the middle finger of all captured English soldiers. Without the middle finger it would be impossible to draw the renowned English longbow and therefore be incapable of fighting in the future.

This famous weapon was made of the native English Yew tree, and the act of drawing the longbow was known as "plucking the yew" (or "pluck yew"). Much to the bewilderment of the French, the English won a major upset and began mocking the French by waving their middle fingers at the defeated French, saying, "See, we can still pluck yew! PLUCK YEW!"

Over the years some 'folk etymologies' have grown up around this symbolic gesture. Since 'pluck yew' is rather difficult to say (like "pleasant mother pheasant plucker," which is who you had to go to for the feathers used on the arrows for the longbow), the difficult consonant cluster at the beginning has gradually changed to a labiodental fricative 'F', and thus the words often used in conjunction with the one-finger-salute are mistakenly thought to have something to do with an intimate encounter. It is also because of the pheasant feathers on the arrows that the symbolic gesture is known as "giving the bird".

And yew all thought yew knew everything!

I've put some thought into it and I kind of agree with Crissi Hynes. I kind of wish that those curtain wearing, camel chasing, goat herders would come take us over. That way, Crissi, Cheryl Crowe, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of [them] would have to learn what it is to be the wife of a turbin head.

They'll have to keep their big arrogant mouths shut and if they give master any lip, he'll commense to beating their [behinds] toot sweet.

Whenever master has friends over, she'll have to submit to forced rape for all of his friends, and then if she gets pregnant by them, she'll be buried to the neck and stoned.

She'll basically have the social stature and the rights of a goat, to be bought, sold, beaten, or slautered.

I fail to understand why PC women want to embrace muslim culture, knowing what atrocities are committed against women in muslim countries every day.

Women who's husbands die or are put in jail are not allowed to have any job except as a prostitute or a begger, but there aren't that many openings for beggers. They are regularly beaten by their husbands and it is perfectly legal to brutally beat and maim his wife. They really aren't wives, they are property.

I've been in restaurants in Oman and UAE and have seen Arab families walk in and the man would walk in and the wife/slave would order the food and bring it to her husband/master and she would have to sit at another table by herself.

Some restaurants don't even allow women. Some of us went to a few hard core Arab joints a few times just to see what it was like. One guy was in intelligence and was an Arab linguist. Without him we wouldn't have been able to order. They eat like fucking pigs! But, they won't eat pigs. Go figure. They only use their hands and they don't quite get it all in their mouths so rice and curry chicken is flying all over the place. We were lucky they didn't poison us.

Democrats talk so much about diversity and tolerance. "We must embrace Arab culture and welcome them graciously". If we go to an Arab country, they sure as hell ain't tolerant of us. If we wanted to live in an Arab country we couldn't practice our religion and would be killed if we spoke of it to an Arab, but Arabs come over here, attack our country, and UNC decides to have a book about the Quaran as required reading. Meanwhile the courts in the Northwest decide they have the authority to change the Pledge of Allegience. What's all this bipolar activity about the so called "separation of church and state debate". The liberals are so confused they don't seem to realize how ridiculous they are. If it has anything miniscule to do with Christianity it is verboden, but if it is Muslim, they welcome it with open arms. Well that goes right back to the point I wanted to make. Why do they embrace such an evil religion and reject a religion that only teaches love and respect? Liberal Democrats MUST BE EVIL THEMSELVES! Thats must be why they want the Ragheads to conquer us. They want this country to be run by evil.

onceamarine,

I too have been to UE. Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Bahrain. I saw female emigrant workers treated as property also (the work contracts are actually indentured servitude contracts). One of the interactions I observed was started because the female cashier did not keep her eyes lowered out of respect for the male customer. She was slapped in the face. Here in America we throw people in jail for doing less than that to helpless females. (I do not mean to imply that females are helpless, just the ones working in indentured servitude.)

I saw Mullahs approach people in the street and incite violence against people for disrespect (laughing or eating in public, females displaying skin). By inciting violence, I mean telling the crowd to beat the offenders.

onceasquid

[Topic 1]
By the way, why are Liberal peaceniks "tolerant" of everyone except those that verbally disagree with their point of view?

They are only "tolerant" of Saddam because he has not said, "I disagree with Liberals"? Are they "tolerant" of Saddam because he wrote an email to Janeane Garofalo and said, "You go girl"?

It is ok to kill and torture helpless people; just do not say you disagree with me. (Situational ethics)

[Topic 2]
By the by, did anyone else hear Janeane Garofalo tell O'Reilly tonight that she said GW Bush was as evil as Saddam? (She believes the US military will kill hundreds of thousands of civilian Iraqis)

[Topic 3]
It has been said that a certain Middle Eastern despot has his bodyguards pick little girls up off the street, or out of crowds at propaganda speeches, for sex. He is said to return the children back to the parents, with a large amount of money, and threatened with torture if they speak about it.

I know that Hollywood has a lot of respect for pedophiles, but this is insane.

Has anyone noticed that whenever a conservative view is put forth by an actor/actress they ask not to be named because they fear being blacklisted?

Wasn't Tom Selleck blacklisted because of his pro gun stance? He went from one movie a year to nothing after he made his views public.

[deleted]

Oh boy! I found a good one here! If you want to hear some really stupid conversations go over to that SAG site! Whew, like Darwin's waiting room!

Anyway,

Jeremy,
...Look here my little misguided spineless twit. No one in the middle east likes "Sadam the Butcher"! The only thing that will be exploding in the Middle east will be the fireworks while they sing "Ding dong [Saddam is] gone"! Where are his allies?

I don't call you a pessimist, I call you chicken little. Hurry run up to Washington and show them your crystal ball, I'm sure they'll change their minds! The fact that you even have the nurts to sit there and type this garbage is amazing! Comparing Somalia to the situation today? Go rent the movie. A company of soldiers against thousands of cracked out rebels?
We are now at over 300,000 troops ready to go.

And now you bring up Bin Laden! C'mon Jeremy, the guy hears footsteps everywhere he goes. The boogie man is as good as dead. Turn out your night light. Don't be surprised if he's on trial by this summer...wait a minute trila? Did I say trial? My bad. He'll be "swimmin' with the fishes" by this summer.

Forget about it. Your lost, you took a right turn when you meant to go left. You had to go with the oil thing! You couldn't take your greasy little fingers off of it huh? Got a question. When the big, mean George the 1st went into Iraq ,amid rumors HE did it for the oil, why didn't we take the wells? How come there are not military camps around each oil well right now? It must have been the great deals we got for bailing out Kuwait, yeah buddy the prices dropped down to .30 a gallon huh? No, we actually had them repaired and said here, have a nice day!

About the arms sales. Yep we did it! I'll admit it. But guess what speedy, we didn't do it after we signed an agreement not to. As recently as January, your pals the French shipped Mirage parts to Iraq. In direct violation of the paper they signed! You see why Pepe' le Pew was a skunk?

Your right big J. We could use the money to build better schools, buy books and while we're doing that little drones with poison gas will filter over our kids heads and we won't have to worry about the BOOKS!

As far as the economy goes, listen and listen close. You are buying into a lie if you believe that the President of the United States controls the economy! That type of thinking was great back in the days of Roosevelt. It wasn't the global economy we have now. The economy controls itself. It's to big for one person to change all that.

Let's look back at the *books* you twisted little monkey. Who invaded an innocent counrty in the name of oil? Iraq-Kuwait ring a bell? You also say invasion of a country that pcesses no threat. What are you blind or choose not to see? It must be a conspiracy, that's it. George W. went to his daddy and said "Daddy, 8 years form now I'm going to run for President, and when I win on my first try I'm going to get that bad man over there and we're going to take his oil." "I will also get a bunch of people together and we'll make up this big story about how he's real bad and is trying to kill us all. We will falsify documents, we'll get the military involved and get them to lie to. Boy, if I could get that dishonest Powell guy I'd have it made!" That's what your trying to feed all of us junior, and as you say, that doesn't work for me.

You are truly the biggest Chicken Little I have ever seen! The sky is not falling. You talk of this "drival" of predicting the future. I don't like your future at all. You did not offer one positive scenario, not one! You talk about attacking from within. Support the Kurds. Yeah right, don't get your hands dirty! Let the Kurds support and fight for the agreement we made with the world. Yeah, that's it. That way I can sit on my ass watch Survivor and the Kurds are claening my oven, so to speak! Your weak and you hide behind theories and twisted history to justify your cowardness. Let someone else do it. Throw some money their way.

And to reach back and pull little Napoleon from his grave and prop him to say "See, here's a French leader!" You have insulted my intelligence for the last time. I remember when no one wanted to get into a war with Germany. There are Jews that survived the holocaust today that say quicker intervention would have saved lives. But no, cod sacks such as yourselves got up and said no, let someone else do it. you have admitted Sadam is a butcher and should be removed. Then all your...arguments and...research just fell down the 'ol one holer! But remember now, he's not a threat! Before you come back to "OUR" world decide which side of your neck you want to talk out of!

My rules!
1. I could give a flip less what Europe thinks of me, my family, my President or my counrty!

2. 60% of the world doesn't agree with us!! SO? This is not Bill Clinton let's take a polltime! France wants to think of themselves, so will we. Guess who's got the bigger gun?

3. France sucks! Always have, always will. To BLOW OFF their hidden agenda of oil agreements is one good example of twisting facts to make Jeremy's argument make sense in his mind. France sniffles the world wants to wipe. The question should be asked, why does France want to stop us? I s this war going to cost them anything? Yep, them dang oil contracts that they're going to have to re-negotiate with who ever is in power over there. You know, the ones that are going to say, "Hey, aren't you the ones that didn't want to free us? Have we got a deal for you!" I can hear "whine" with their cheese!

4. What is more appalling than him even showing up this website is that he turns his back on Iraq and points his finger at us. All the while keeping one finger in his ear and yelling loudly "Mary had a little lamb..." so he can't hear or see Iraq.

5. I'm an American. I believe our country is the best country in the world. How many refugees do you see coming up to Iraq and saying please le tme stay? I'm arrogant about it and make no apologies for it. I served six years in the Army with a tour of duty in 10th Mountain Div (LI). Something Jeremy's dad forgot to tell him about. Boy, your lucky I'm not your daddy. I whip your little [backside] and send you off to bed! If you don't like this country, BYE! Don't let your rights hit you in the butt on the way out! I do hang my flag out every day. Just something I do. If someone comes to burn it, they better pack a lunch 'cause their going to be there all day!

6. All this talk about an illegal war and crap is hurting our troops. I was over seas and I know what that sounds like. All I can say is keep your mouth shut when we go in. Support our troops, bite your lip. When it's all over and we're digging up these WMD that don't exist, I want to see your butt right back here Jeremy! I'd like to see what you would have to say.

7. You have the right to free speech, just remember that right also comes with a resposibility. And it is a two-way street!

8. I once had a conversation with an "open minded" person. She told me there were aliens. I told she was crazy. She told me I wasn't open minded! You don't get it do you Jeremy? You see in order to be open minded means you need to accept everything! I'm not a garbage hopper. I don't take ANYTHING! As far as I'm concerned she wasn't "open minded" to the fact I could have been right. When you don't stand for something, you get all wishy-washy and gray with no boundries. It doesn't work that way!
9. Duty, honor, country! (The Star Spangled Banner softly plays in the background....)

To the majority here, you are the best!! I'm stronger for coming here and I thank you for it!!

I love this NEW argument. The old ones were, well, getting old!

The New argument is that "Look at the way the world is looking at us?" ... Why doesn't the rest of the world back us up, huh? Why? Because this isn't a vote. Clinton is no longer in office. There is no longer a need to poll the world, analyze the results and see if we're right! Who in the world is bigger than us? Who has the power and military better trained than ours. We are the ones in the big house on the hill. That faint voice in the background is the "mill" village below! Try for a third argument this one is dead!

Some say they're sick and tired of people bringing up Clinton, yet the fact is that if he had taken bin Laden's head as offered, there would have been no 9/11, yet NO ONE in the Liberal camp demands an answer from Clinton.

Had Clinton dealt with Saddam in a decisive manner while the economy was good, we would not be trying to fight what may become a multiple front war while we are in a recession and looking at budget deficits.

(By the way--read John Kenneth Galbraith's 1954 book, "The Great Crash of 1929," and you will understand why deficits during a recession are not necessarily a bad thing!)

Instead, Clinton only used the opportunity afforded by Saddam's existence to spend nearly $1 Billion on Tomahawks to try to distract Congress from its vote to impeach him. Is it so incredible that he might have kept this maniac, and bin Laden, in place for purely selfish reasons--so that he, Clinton, would always have a ready and justifiable target to launch strikes against in order to divert attention from any of his many indiscretions? If so...

ive enjoyed the posts in here thus far. thank you.

"the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

that quote holds true in this situation, we can turn our backs or we can man-up and do whats right. saddams time has run out, too bad. 12 years of ignoring and playing with the the un, supposedly the strongest multilateral organization, and people still say "more time, more time" till when? the time for action is upon us. what is the un good for if it cant enforce anything? it will be about as respected as a father who constantly tells his kids no, yet they continue to disobey, and his only way to punish, is to say no again. that is ridiculous.

and the pretenders singer, she also challenged someone to a fight on stage (albeit with her drummer standing behind her) too bad some of the ladies that post in here werent there, we could have been reading about how the pretenders were in disarray because the lead singers mouth had to be wired shut. what a shame that would've been.

Some grist for the mill.

On our "allies" see

1. "An earful on the war from America's 'allies.'" at www.gwu.edu/~ccps/etzioni/B386.html

2. "Iraq strengthens air force with French parts" at
www.washtimes.com/national/20030307-545570.htm

3. "Chirac blasts EU candidates" at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2774139.stm

4. "The Inspections Dodge: Why are France and Germany pro-Saddam? Follow the money." at
www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003053

5. "George Will: When war begins, Franceís ëinfluenceí will be
nothing but a nuisance" at
www.theunionleader.com/articles_show.html?article=18829

On Saddam and Iraq see

6. "Tales of the Tyrant" at
www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/05/bowden.htm

7. "The Horrors of "Peace"" at
www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/314yltit.asp

8. "Kurdistan: Death in the Afternoon" at
www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,426910,00.html

On not repeating mistakes see

9. "How Screwed Are the Kurds?" at
http://slate.msn.com/id/2079592/

10. "Talking Turkey" at
http://slate.msn.com/id/2079633/

UN enforced is unenforced.

The real question:

UN or you out?

Actors are mere court jesters and as such serve mostly to entertain. Actors should not determine Foreign Policy, National Security, or MY SECURITY for that matter. KNOW YOU PLACE SCREEN MONKEYS. We the people chose George W. Bush, not Martin Sheen to be our president and govern our country. Silly, pompous, ego-maniacal Martin, it's only a show, if you keep it up we will have an apocalypse now. Therefore I, as a United States Citizen, request that our government decree it illegal for any person of ILLEGITIMATE mass influence (e.g. actors, musicians, entertainers) attempting to wrestle control from our government and undermine our National Security to be ARRESTED, JAILED FOR NO LESS THAN ONE YEAR, HEAVILY FINED IN EXCESS OF $250,000, AND PUT ON PROBATION FOR NO LESS THAN ONE YEAR. To speak out in protest is fine, to use illegitimate, undue, and unjust influence for your own means is wrong and should be illegal. America is not the simple country of yesteryear and complex life threatening politics are not an actor's forte. For medical reasons, I trust a surgeon to operate on me, not a comedian. So for the good of the world, ACTORS....STAY OUT OF POLITICS BEFORE YOU KILL US ALL, YOU IMBECILES!! Most protestors do not even know why they are protesting, just that they heard something or think it is cool to protest. You celebrities make a situation from bad to worse. I plead with you all to have common sense and leave POLITICS to the POLITICians and those who are involved. If you choose to get involved, please do not become the center of attention, this is not a HOLLYWOOD photo op, this is real life. And finally a side note for MR. DANNY GLOVER, IF 10 black men, 5 Chinese men, 6 white men, and 9 hispanice men kill innocent people in cold blood, they should all be put to death. Bad ratio, you bet, but justice is not a question of race. If you want to serve on the side of justice, you yourself need to stop being racist and try to help the innocent, not just the minorities. Love those of all races and despise those that seek to do us harm regardless of color.

Proud to be American,
Sebastian

---[Ed. Note: This may have been an insightful post, but I didn't have time to find out. I just scanned for obscenities and deleted it. Please feel free to post again without the trash language.]

I am sick and tired of hearing "the inspections are working". They are not. What has wrung the recent (pathetically minor) concessions from Saddam is the quarter million troops poised at the Iraqi borders. If we take the current rate of disarmament and extrapolate the time and effort used to get to this point, we can then expect Iraq to be fully disarmed by, oh, say, sometime in the year 3025.

In all seriousness, how can anyone state that "we have not yet exhausted all options short of war"? What's left to try? Let's review.

1. Containment? Been there, done that. Twelve years ago, a military action forced Iraq out of Kuwait. It was agreed not to continue military action or to occupy his country on condition of his full disarmament. Saddam was then left in peace to carry out his obligations in good faith vis a vis the peace treaty he had to accept as per his nation's status as the defeated aggressor. He did not, and, to date, has not, fulfilled his part of the treaty.

2. Weapons inspections? Nope. Saddam even had the audacity to throw the UN inspectors out of Iraq once they discovered he was continuing to develop and/or expand his programs of proscribed weapons. The inspectors were only allowed back in once the credible threat of new war was introduced (see #1). Since then, Saddam has been playing hide-and-seek with the UN inspectors.

3. Economic sanctions? Not hardly. Saddam has been trading left and right beyond the limits of the UN sanctions (it will be interesting to discover which nations have been helping Saddam violate the sanctions), meanwhile plundering Iraq's coffers to pay for palaces and proscribed weapons programs.

4. Diplomacy? Uh huh. Saddam has oh-so-graciously received countless visits from representatives of the United Nations, world leaders and Hollywood over the last twelve years. He or his staff fetes them in front of the cameras while continuing his weapons programs behind the scenes. It's well known that one cannot be rational with someone who is irrational.

5. UN resolutions? Sorry, not that either. Eighteen consequence-free resolutions later (including one "final chance"), Saddam continues to defy the will of the international community.

6. More time? Time for what? Twelve years have passed. How much time, exactly, would be considered sufficient? Should we leave our military forces and equipment to languish at the Iraqi borders for twelve more years? Iraq is not the only threat to world peace and it doesn't get to hog all the attention. Enough already - we have other business to attend to.

It defies logic that an American President, who surely wants to be reelected, would mobilize 200,000 troops (calling up the reserves, for crying out loud), six Navy carrier groups, a large portion of the Air Force, significant numbers of Marines, probably half the Army and all the collateral equipment - just on the strength of rumors. Why is the man who has the richly deserved moniker "The Butcher of Baghdad" given the benefit of the doubt, and not our President? Let us not forget, either, that terrorism is a commodity easily exported in the era of an ever shrinking planet, the truth of which knowledge should have been made clear to us on 9/11 as a completely credible threat. Our war on terrorism is moving forward at quite a smart pace, thank you very much, so yes, we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Even those of us with legitimate and heartfelt misgivings must, at some point, trust our President when he tells us this dictator is an IMMINENT threat to our safety. If anyone in the world can find a peaceful solution that renders Saddam harmless forever, therefore nullifying any reason for war, God bless you and speak up loud and clear. People on both sides of the war question pray hourly for such a breakthrough. FYI: War protesters don't hold the market on the angst, sorrow and horror such a devastating thing as war engenders. Do the anti-war protester really believe that the rest of us don't care about the innocent Iraqi civilians?

If ever comes the day anti-war protesters carry signs naming SADDAM as the genocidal, homicidal, war-mongering, nose-thumbing, human-rights-violating butcher that he is, and further, banners demanding he disarm as per UN mandates so as to avoid forcing the US/UK to go to war, that will be the day I will respect their protests as serious and thoughtful dissent on the question of war.

All right, I'll try this again; apologies for language of my original response -- I just get a little steamed at being insulted at least once a paragraph (it's hard to read things like "twisted little monkey" as anything other than an insult, sorry). I'll attempt to tone it down.

---
...Look here my little misguided spineless twit. No one in the middle east likes "Sadam the Butcher"! The only thing that will be exploding in the Middle east will be the fireworks while they sing "Ding dong [Saddam is] gone"! Where are his allies?
I don't call you a pessimist, I call you chicken little. Hurry run up to Washington and show them your crystal ball, I'm sure they'll change their minds! The fact that you even have the nurts to sit there and type this garbage is amazing! Comparing Somalia to the situation today? Go rent the movie. A company of soldiers against thousands of cracked out rebels?
---

Actually, no. How 'bout turning off the TV and reading the much-better *book* -- part of the point of which is that the city was *pro*-American, by and large, but went somewhat berserk because they saw U.S. troops shooting people, some of whom were women and children. And before you say it: do I hold the soldiers to blame for it? Nope. They were stuck in the middle of a scary situation, and reacted as best they could, but it *still* resulted in a bloodbath -- try expanding that situation to country size. But hey, I guess if they look different from us, they must *all* be bad guys, right?

---
And now you bring up Bin Laden! C'mon Jeremy, the guy hears footsteps everywhere he goes. The boogie man is as good as dead. Turn out your night light. Don't be surprised if he's on trial by this summer...wait a minute trila? Did I say trial? My bad. He'll be "swimmin' with the fishes" by this summer.
---

Yeah, and I've heard *that* since, what, the day after 9/11? Please.

---
Forget about it. Your lost, you took a right turn when you meant to go left. You had to go with the oil thing! You couldn't take your greasy little fingers off of it huh? Got a question. When the big, mean George the 1st went into Iraq ,amid rumors HE did it for the oil, why didn't we take the wells? How come there are not military camps around each oil well right now? It must have been the great deals we got for bailing out Kuwait, yeah buddy the prices dropped down to .30 a gallon huh? No, we actually had them repaired and said here, have a nice day!
---

Good for us. Take a look at what I wrote -- all I said is that it's stupid to automatically assume the French motivation *must be* oil and then dismiss any notion that it might be part of the equation for the U.S., too. That's what's known as a double standard, friend.

---
About the arms sales. Yep we did it! I'll admit it. But guess what speedy, we didn't do it after we signed an agreement not to. As recently as January, your pals the French shipped Mirage parts to Iraq. In direct violation of the paper they signed! You see why Pepe' le Pew was a skunk?
---

Yeah, and I thought this *wasn't* about international accords, right? Doesn't everybody here pretty much think they're useless to begin with? I thought we were debating the "big picture," which is that WE are pointing fingers at the French for selling Saddam weapons, while we ourselves sold them the ones that got us all into this mess in the first place. And do I think the French should be selling Saddam weapons? Heck, no. I don't think *anyone* should be selling him weapons, and that anybody who does deserves to be punished, somewhat like the "smart sanctions" the Bush team proposed a while back. ("Speedy"? O-kay...)

---
Your right big J. We could use the money to build better schools, buy books and while we're doing that little drones with poison gas will filter over our kids heads and we won't have to worry about the BOOKS!
---

Uh-huh. It's really funny -- you claim that *I'm* scared of everything, and then you invoke crap like this to justify your point. Do you keep your kids indoors all day, then, so they're not in danger?

Fix things at home first, then do whatever you can abroad, that's my motto (and heck, it used to be Bush's; the man campaigned as an isolationist).

---
As far as the economy goes, listen and listen close. You are buying into a lie if you believe that the President of the United States controls the economy! That type of thinking was great back in the days of Roosevelt. It wasn't the global economy we have now. The economy controls itself. It's to big for one person to change all that.
---

Did I say the President controls the economy? No, I did *not*. I just said that we need the money we're going to blow on the war to help out the people back home, like the 40% of this country w/o health insurance, the 300,000 people who've lost their jobs since January, or the kids who're going to be left behind, education-wise, because there's no money for the states to spend on education.

---
Let's look back at the *books* you twisted little monkey. Who invaded an innocent counrty in the name of oil? Iraq-Kuwait ring a bell? You also say invasion of a country that pcesses no threat. What are you blind or choose not to see? It must be a conspiracy, that's it. George W. went to his daddy and said "Daddy, 8 years form now I'm going to run for President, and when I win on my first try I'm going to get that bad man over there and we're going to take his oil." "I will also get a bunch of people together and we'll make up this big story about how he's real bad and is trying to kill us all. We will falsify documents, we'll get the military involved and get them to lie to. Boy, if I could get that dishonest Powell guy I'd have it made!" That's what your trying to feed all of us junior, and as you say, that doesn't work for me.
You are truly the biggest Chicken Little I have ever seen! The sky is not falling. You talk of this "drival" of predicting the future. I don't like your future at all. You did not offer one positive scenario, not one! You talk about attacking from within. Support the Kurds. Yeah right, don't get your hands dirty! Let the Kurds support and fight for the agreement we made with the world. Yeah, that's it. That way I can sit on my ass watch Survivor and the Kurds are claening my oven, so to speak! Your weak and you hide behind theories and twisted history to justify your cowardness. Let someone else do it. Throw some money their way.
---

Pal, you need to grow a brain and then attempt to use it occasionally. Sorry, I've been trying to be polite about this, but I can only deal with being called a "twisted little monkey" so many times. First off, take a closer look at history: Iraq invaded Kuwait because the Kuwaitis were slant-drilling Iraqi oil across the border and the Kuwaiti government refused to either stop or pay Iraq the money the Iraqis figured they were siphoning off. Do I think that justifies invasion? No. Did I support the Gulf War? Yes, because I thought kicking Saddam out of Kuwait was a great idea.

As to the second part, yes, I think we're invading a country that poses no threat -- we live all the way around the world! To whom do they pose a threat? You? Me? If there's an attack on the U.S., it's not going to come from a recognized government, either way, because nobody out there is that dumb (especially not after Afghanistan), but when has Saddam sent any terrorists over here? Ever? Where the hell are they? And you're calling *me* Chicken Little? Right. I see much greater threats from North Korea and Saudi Arabia; if you want us to go spend some money taking *them* down, I'll support that.

For part three, I don't think it's a conspiracy, don't worry -- you can keep those theories to yourself. I *do* think that a handful of high-ranking cabinet officials and advisors have a plan in mind not to "liberate" Iraq but to put another Saddam Hussein in power, because that's what'd make the country stable. Think that's a "conspiracy"? Think I'm inventing it? Go do some research that doesn't involve listening to Rush Limbaugh and look up every darn thing Douglas Feith or Paul Wolfowitz have said over the last three or four years. If I thought we were going to invade and *REALLY* liberate the Iraqi people, I'd be all for it, but we won't. We *can't* allow elections, because the risks are too high -- does the Bush administration want another Iran? No, don't think so. So what do we do with this country that happens to have a Sunni majority (the same as Iran) once the smoke clears? We put a hold on the country 'til we can set up somebody who'll keep things quiet and normal, like, say, one of the heads of the military (hey, maybe that guy who gassed the Kurds would work...) If, by the end of this, I'm wrong, and we really, truly do help the Iraqis elect their own government and become the democracy we claim we want them to be, then like I told the Sergeant, I'll apologize and admit I was wrong.

Finally, you yell and rant about letting the Kurds fight for us -- fine, that's fair. We bear some responsibility for this mess, and I'm all for Kurdish liberation; those poor people have been screwed for so long it's not even funny. But while we're making deals with the Kurds to help fight Saddam, we're also inviting their century-old enemy, Turkey, right into their back yard. Heck, the *Kurds* don't even want that! They know that once the Turkish army moves into the north of Iraq, they're going to make it very difficult for anybody to get them to leave -- they've claimed that part of Iraq as their territory for years now anyway. I'm not about to party to us handing over the closest thing the Kurds have ever had to a free Kurdistan (which is the no-fly zone in northern Iraq) to a country that's killed as many Kurds as Saddam Hussein.

---
And to reach back and pull little Napoleon from his grave and prop him to say "See, here's a French leader!" You have insulted my intelligence for the last time.
---

Why, because you'd never heard of the guy? Hey, I've heard too much selective bashing of the French military to let it go, sorry, and most of it's crap.

---
I remember when no one wanted to get into a war with Germany. There are Jews that survived the holocaust today that say quicker intervention would have saved lives. But no, cod sacks such as yourselves got up and said no, let someone else do it. you have admitted Sadam is a butcher and should be removed. Then all your...arguments and...research just fell down the 'ol one holer! But remember now, he's not a threat! Before you come back to "OUR" world decide which side of your neck you want to talk out of!
---

Yeah, I admitted Saddam's a butcher and should be removed -- I just don't think a war that could make things *much* worse is the way to do it, and that's what I've said all along (I'm not going to repeat the points I made earlier on that; go look above if you care). Why don't we go in and just assassinate the guy? I'm not generally for that sort of thing, either, but I'll go for it -- one man dead and a quick transition to the supposed Iraqi soldiers just waiting to rise up and overthrow the government (hey, that's what they are, right? that's the plan?) beats the heck out of a war that will kill more civilians than soldiers.

---
My rules!
1. I could give a flip less what Europe thinks of me, my family, my President or my counrty!
2. 60% of the world doesn't agree with us!! SO? This is not Bill Clinton let's take a polltime! France wants to think of themselves, so will we. Guess who's got the bigger gun?
---

Nice. We love democracy, but if anybody dares to talk back, we stick a gun in their face. People like you make me ill. Don't your first two rules contradict themselves? You don't care what they think of us, but you get upset when they say it aloud and so you threaten them...that doesn't sound like you don't care what anybody else thinks, to me.

---
3. France sucks! Always have, always will. To BLOW OFF their hidden agenda of oil agreements is one good example of twisting facts to make Jeremy's argument make sense in his mind. France sniffles the world wants to wipe. The question should be asked, why does France want to stop us? I s this war going to cost them anything? Yep, them dang oil contracts that they're going to have to re-negotiate with who ever is in power over there. You know, the ones that are going to say, "Hey, aren't you the ones that didn't want to free us? Have we got a deal for you!" I can hear "whine" with their cheese!
---

Man...look, you did it again -- you blasted me up above for suggesting that oil *could* be part of the U.S. motivation, and then you throw out the "France wants their oil, too!" argument. As I said, I happen to think the real motivation is mostly stability, but a stable government that loves the U.S. is definitely a place that's going to let the oil companies do what they want more readily -- and Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress, has told us a number of times that U.S. companies would get "consideration" for invading Iraq. Gee, what's that add up to? Now, I'll say it again, so you can get it: I *DO NOT* think that oil's why we're going to war; I think we're going to war to make the Middle East a stable place by whatever means necessary. Oil just happens to be a handy bonus. In the words of one of the top oil industry guys: "This war is not about oil. When the war's over, it will be *all* about oil."

---
4. What is more appalling than him even showing up this website is that he turns his back on Iraq and points his finger at us. All the while keeping one finger in his ear and yelling loudly "Mary had a little lamb..." so he can't hear or see Iraq.
---

When did I point the finger at you? I love my country, you jerk -- I was born here, my kids will be born here, and I'll die here. I would die to protect it, even if that means giving my life for imbeciles like you. I do, however, think that we're adults and need to *think* before we act and take a little responsibility for the things we do. Otherwise we're just the biggest bully kid in the sandbox; is that what you want to be?

---
5. I'm an American. I believe our country is the best country in the world. How many refugees do you see coming up to Iraq and saying please le tme stay? I'm arrogant about it and make no apologies for it. I served six years in the Army with a tour of duty in 10th Mountain Div (LI). Something Jeremy's dad forgot to tell him about. Boy, your lucky I'm not your daddy. I whip your little [backside] and send you off to bed! If you don't like this country, BYE! Don't let your rights hit you in the butt on the way out! I do hang my flag out every day. Just something I do. If someone comes to burn it, they better pack a lunch 'cause their going to be there all day!
---

Alright, now here's where you really make me mad. Because I happen to disagree with you, I need to *leave*? Sorry, pal, but it's not happening. I don't give a damn what you think of me, but I am *an American* -- I'm a thinking, intelligent, patriotic, realistic American, but I've as much right to be here as you do, if not more. Because you don't like what I say, I'm somehow not worthy of living in the same country as you? Wow, that makes me laugh. All I can say is this: too bad! I'm here, I love it here, and I'm not leaving -- get used to it.

And for the record, I'm no flag-burner -- I was taught to respect the flag, and I do, as a symbol of the good things this country has done and the sacrifices people have made over the centuries. It's not just *your* flag; don't co-opt something that doesn't belong to you to justify what you believe.

By the by, I'd *like* to see you whip my backside; I'll take you any day. Heck, my *dad*, who spent 25 years of his life in the Army, serving this country, would take you any day, and he's starting to have problems getting around. (And yes, you're right, I *am* lucky your not my daddy, because my dad's a wonderful, courageous man.)

---
6. All this talk about an illegal war and crap is hurting our troops. I was over seas and I know what that sounds like. All I can say is keep your mouth shut when we go in. Support our troops, bite your lip. When it's all over and we're digging up these WMD that don't exist, I want to see your butt right back here Jeremy! I'd like to see what you would have to say.
---

Sure, and I will -- did you actually *read* any of what I posted previously? (*Can* you read, for that matter?) I've said all along that I *hope* I'm wrong, that I hope our war makes democracy flower in Iraq and unearths all of Saddam's nasty, unused weaponry, and that everybody lives happily ever after. I'll be back here to apologize then, if that's the case. But hey, if our stay in Iraq turns into a long-term occupation, the Middle East explodes into an even bigger war, or thousands flock to join terrorist groups because they think they have to defend themselves against the U.S., what are *you* going to do? Bunzii, are you going to come back to me and say "I'm sorry, you were right"? Somehow, I don't think so.

And I *do* support our troops -- I have friends and relatives in the Gulf right now, and I want this war (which *will* happen, I know; I'm not naive) to be over as soon as possible so they can come home alive. Protesting the war does NOT mean protesting the troops; I and most of the anti-war folks out there know full well that they're doing their jobs the best they can. This isn't Vietnam -- I don't see any protesters yelling "baby-killer" or spitting on G.I.s, do you? As I've said all along, I'm more concerned with what happens *AFTER* the war, not during.

---
7. You have the right to free speech, just remember that right also comes with a resposibility. And it is a two-way street!
---

Point that one back at yourself, friend. "Free speech" does *not* mean "only free speech that agrees with what Bunzii thinks."

---
8. I once had a conversation with an "open minded" person. She told me there were aliens. I told she was crazy. She told me I wasn't open minded! You don't get it do you Jeremy? You see in order to be open minded means you need to accept everything! I'm not a garbage hopper. I don't take ANYTHING! As far as I'm concerned she wasn't "open minded" to the fact I could have been right. When you don't stand for something, you get all wishy-washy and gray with no boundries. It doesn't work that way!
---

I stand for a lot of things; care to try me? You're presuming to know an awful lot about me, when it's clear you don't even read what I've been writing very closely. I'm like anybody else -- I believe some things, don't believe others, and really disagree with a select handful. A lot of folks seem to have this image of anti-war protesters as nutcases who think aliens are real, JFK was assassinated by the CIA, and that everything would be better if we would all just sing together; that's what you think, isn't it? (Maybe I'm wrong, but if you presume to know me, I'm going to presume to know you.) Well, I'm here to tell you that you're absolutely, completely wrong -- people against this war come from all over, span all ages, and a lot of them happen to have good jobs, vote, go to church, have kids, and pay their taxes like good old-fashioned Americans. We're your friends, neighbors, relatives, and co-workers, so I'd think twice before you stereotype us as pacifist hippies, because we're far from it.

---
9. Duty, honor, country! (The Star Spangled Banner softly plays in the background....)
To the majority here, you are the best!! I'm stronger for coming here and I thank you for it!!
---

To the other folks who've responded to what I've posted, thanks -- you've all been very reasonable and even friendly, which is refreshing. Thanks for being open about all this.

-Jeremy

Note the common historical and intellectual links between anti-Americanism in France, Germany and the Middle East

Why Do They Hate Us?: Two Books Take Aim at French Anti-Americanism at
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/search/printable.asp?i=20030301fareviewessay10345.XML&return;=

The Roots of Muslim Rage at
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/90sep/rage.htm

Blix: "Um Saddam, what's this?"

Saddam: "OK, one fricken biological weapons! Sheesh! Give a guy a break! You can't expect me to remember where I stashed all 'proscribed' weapons in desert country size of California, do you?"

Saddam: "Hey, is true California girls hot like in Baywatch? Or do they all get fat sucked out of stomach to inject in breasts, do aerobic all day, and barf on purpose so they just look hot for Hollywoods?"

(Ladies, please don't be offended--I'm trying to spoof a maniacal murdering dictator who can only imagine what life in the US must be like--but then with our border and immigration enforcement policies, he could have been here for years, living on food stamps and welfare!)

Saddam: But back to the weapons of mass destructions, that's all I have, is this one biological weapon. Everything else destroyed. I just forget this one. This all I got."

Blix: "Um Saddam, what's this?"

Saddam: "Ok, and this artillery shells made for filling with biological and chemical weapons. But this brand new 20-year-old artillery shells. I forget this too. These previously declared, and do not count as 'proscribed' weapons of mass destructions. But this all I got--this one biological weapons and this artillery shells. Everything else destroyed. This all I got."

Blix: "Um Saddam, what's this?"

Saddam: "OK, and these 120 al Samoud II missiles, but they are allowed by the UN."

Blix: "Um Saddam, remember the 300,000 US troops and the huge armada on your borders, just looking for an excuse to vaporize your A$$?"

Saddam: "OK, I know this missiles exceed range limit set by the UN, but I will not destroy them."

Blix: "Um Saddam, remember the that huge armada I mentioned earlier?"

Saddam: "Sheesh, and you want ME to disarm! OK, I destroy missiles! It's only 25 miles! You people so picky on details!"

Saddam: "Pssst! Blix! What take more time destroying missiles? Bulldozer, or explosive?"

Blix: "Bulldozer!"

Saddam: "OK! I destroy al Samoud II missiles with bulldozer, (you *&^%$#@ American cowboys!!!!) But that's all I got--this one biological weapons, this artillery shells, and this 120 al Samoud II missiles. Everything else destroyed. This all I got."

Blix: "Um Saddam, what's this?"

Saddam: "OK, and these drones. I dunno how far they fly. You people invent airplane--you tell me! What GPS navigations and spray tanks? That windshields washing."

Blix: "Um Saddam, remember theÖ"

Saddam: "OK, *&^%$#@ it! Maybe they could be used for biological and chemical weapons. We use them for cropdust."

Blix: "Um SaddamÖ"

Saddam: "Ack!!! *&^%$#@ it!!! OK, they design for spread biological and chemical weapons. But we don't gots none. Except this one biological weapons. We just got this one biological weapons this artillery shells, this 120... no, 90! 90 al Samoud II missiles, and this six drones. Everything else destroyed. This all I got."

Blix: "Um Saddam, what's this?"

Saddam: "OK, and this cluster bombs. This not cluster bomb for weapons of mass destructions! Hee-hee! Woman use for incense."

Blix: "Um.."

Saddam: "Ack!!! *&^%$#@ it Blix, I'm going to rip your skin off!!!"

Blix: "Ok, sorry boss! I'll just leave these cluster bombs and drones out of my verbal report, and bury them in the written report. Nobody ever reads those anyway!"

Saddam: " OK, they also design for spread biological and chemical weapons. But we don't gots none. Except this one biological weapons. We just got this one biological weapons, this artillery shells, this 90... no, 45! 45 al Samoud II missiles, and this six drones. Everything else destroyed. This all I got."

And so goes the UN weapons inspections process in Iraq.

12 years after a Cease-Fire agreement signed by both sides, ostensibly to avoid further bloodshed if Saddam would agree to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction within one year.

Now after 12 years, after 17 further UN resolutions due to Iraqi non-compliance, after Clinton launched nearly $1 Billion worth of Tomahawks on Baghdad in 1998 ostensibly due to Iraqi non-compliance, (c'mon, Congress WAS about to vote on his impeachment), after the inspectors were later ejected by Saddam in 1998, after six months of haggling with Congress and the world community in 2002-2003--first over whether the US with the willing coalition of more than 35 other nations including all of Europe and all of NATO except France, Germany and Belgium, and except for Russia, China and N. Korea (who all hate us anyway), SHOULD disarm Saddam "unilaterally," then over whether there were any weapons of mass destruction to disarm, then over whether there was any means to deliver the weapons of mass destruction Blix found in spite of himself and Saddam, then over whether Saddam SHOULD be disarmed, then over whether inspections really do work, then over whether to give inspections more time to find out whether inspections really do work, then over whether theÖ

Meanwhile, millions of anti-Bush... I mean PEACE protesters take to the streets all over the world, and the US gathers enough forces around Iraq to pulverize the Iraqi military--after all of this, we have found one biological weapons, this artillery shells, this 45... no, 15! 15 al Samoud II missiles, and this six drones. Everything else destroyed. This all Saddam got.

I'm sure glad we didn't need inspectors to determine whether Iraq really had invaded Kuwait in August of 1990!

Maybe we should listen to Martin Sheen--"Inspections work; war won't!"

Hah!

Two acknowledgements I must make: (1 ) Apologies to Steve Martin; (2) I probably give Blix too much credit for either integrity or competence--not sure yet which.

The anti-war movement is despicable. Especially with celebrities, but nothing is more vile, more disgusting than what Michael Moore said about 9-11

"The passengers were scaredy-cats because they were mostly white. If the passengers had included black men, he claimed, those killers, with their puny bodies and unimpressive small knives, would have been crushed by the dudes."

Certainly the heroes of flight 93, including a gay rugby player, didn't die so that this monstrocity of an American could get fat off of our dollars with his dumb little gun documentery. He's a disgrace, and should be boycotted, along with the rest of hollywood.

Wanted to share Mr. Adkins' thoughts...

Snappy Answers to Leftists
By Tom Adkins
Sierra Times | March 11, 2003

Tired of those stupid liberal soundbytes about the impending war against Iraq? Here are some handy snappy answers!
===================

Leftists: The United States is taking unilateral action against Iraq!
Answer: So far, it's a 90-member worldwide "unilateral" coalition.

Leftists: We are in a rush to war.
Answer: An 11-year rush?

Leftists: Tough inspections can disarm Saddam Hussein without invading Iraq.
Answer: Years of inspections have done wonders so far.

Leftists: We should let the inspectors finish their job.
Answer: We did. They didn't. We will.

Leftists: Why fight? The Iraqi military is weaker than in 1991.
Answer: But their biological weapons and chemical weapons are much more dangerous.

Leftists: There's no proof of weapons.
Answer: We know they have 'em, we know they hide 'em, and we have tape recordings and photographs. What more is needed? An Iraqi rocket in Martin Sheen's shorts?

Leftists: If we invade, Saddam Hussein might use those weapons of mass destruction against us.
Answer: I thought you said Iraq didn't have them!

Leftists: But terrorists might attack if we invade Iraq.
Answer: OhÖso if we don't attack Iraq, terrorists will never strike again?

Leftists: We shouldn't go to war without a UN resolution.
Answer: ANOTHER resolution? What about the last 16 resolutions? Shall we use them as wallpaper? Or shall we use the same resolutions Bill Clinton used in Bosnia?

Leftists: We don't have a real declaration for war.
Answer: It's called "Joint Congressional Resolution #114."

Leftists: If North Korea has nuclear weapons, why aren't we invading them first?
Answer: First things first.

North Korea has not invaded two neighboring countries within the past two decades. Iraq did.

North Korea does not pay $20,000 in blood money to the families of terrorist murderers. Iraq does.

North Korea has not used nerve gas and mustard gas against invaded countries as well as its own citizens. It's merely starving them. Iraq HAS used poison gases.

Iraq, not North Korea, welcomes and houses Arab terrorists who despise Israel and its only ally in the world, America. There are more reasons, but these will do.

Leftists: European leaders are against the war.
Answer: The Reichstag wasn't attacked. The Grande Palace wasn't attacked. The Kremlin wasn't attacked. And the Jerry Lewis Lifetime Achievement Museum wasn't attacked. America was attacked. And besides, except for the tantrums of France, Belgium and Germany, only three European nations aren't willing to defend freedom. The entire rest of Europe is with America.

Leftists: The French don't support the war.
Answer: OhÖdid they surrender already?

Leftists: Germany objects to this war.
Answer: Germany objected to Reagan's "attitude" towards the Soviet Union. Of course, they objected to our presence in 1943 as well.

Leftists: Belgians are against the war.
Answer: I can live without Waffles and ice cream.

Leftists: Russia doesn't support the war.
Answer: They are still angry over Reagan's brilliant Cold War victory.

Leftists: Polls show Europeans are against this war.
Answer: Polls show Europeans believe their freedom was achieved by endlessly debating in marvelous dining halls, conveniently forgetting their right to be pompous blowhards was granted with American blood, not fabulous wine and brieÖ

Leftists: We should build a coalition with our friends.
Answer: With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Leftists: What happens if we can't build a United Nations coalition?
Answer: Who cares?

Leftists: But the UN is the world's most respected governing body.
Answer: Not as respected as the US military.

Leftists: America has always waited until enemies attacked.
Answer: Now that oceans can't hold back enemies, pre-emptive war is forever a necessity.

Leftists: War will cost billions!
Answer: SoÖhow much is YOUR city worth?

Leftists: President Bush says he's willing to violating the 1976 executive order forbidding assassinations of foreign leaders.
Answer: As soon as the ink is dry on rescinding that idiotic order, will someone please pull the trigger? The line forms to the rightÖ

Leftists: Many Senators don't support Bush
Answer: Are you speaking of the Senators from Bordeaux?

Leftists: Tom Daschle says George Bush has a "credibility gap"
Answer: When was the last time we came to Tom Daschle for the truth???

Leftists: These problems didn't happen under Clinton.
Answer: Actually, they happened. But Clinton ignored them. Now, Bush will clean up his mess.

Leftists: But Clinton didn't start a war.
Answer: Unless his girlfriend was testifying before congressÖ

Leftists: Bush 1st should have taken out Hussein in '91.
Answer: That 1991 UN resolution forbade a march on Baghdad. Remember?

Leftists: Millions of peace activists are demanding we stop the war.
Answer: Millions of Iraqi's are begging for us to start the war.

Leftists: Thousands of innocents will be killed or injured.
Answer: That's a lot less than Hussein is killing right now. (Of course, there's only one man that needs to be killedÖ)

Leftists: Young Americans will die in battle.
Answer: Would you prefer they die in skyscrapers?

Leftists: Protesters have genuine objections to war
Answer: Just like they did in Somalia? Bosnia?

Leftists: People are coming from all over the world to act as "human shields".
Answer: Quick, hurry, before the bombs start droppingÖ

Leftists: This is about American Imperialism.
Answer: So which country do we own? What nation sends us their tax dollars? If America was imperialist, we'd already own the entire world. Who could stand in our way?

Leftists: This is Blood for Oil
Answer: The only blood is the Iraqi people tortured, starved and killed while Hussein builds massive palaces to hide nuclear weaponsÖall financed with Iraqi oil.

Leftists: This is a racist war.
Answer: America happily endorses a multi-cultural attitude towards anyone who dares to take away our freedom.Regardless of race, color or creed, we hunt them down and kill them.

Leftists: A U.S.-led invasion of Iraq is a great recruiting tool for terrorists.
Answer: Have fun recruiting people into oppressive misery as they enjoy their first taste of freedom.

Leftists: An attack on Iraq could seriously undermine and destabilize Arab nations.
Answer: Destabilize the region? Is that possible? Do you think? The sooner we topple these tlineoppressive 14th century terrorist regimes the better.

Leftists: Are we prepared for a multi-billion dollar occupation?
Answer: Were we prepared to liberate Europe and Japan in 1945? South Korea in 1953? Grenada? El Salvador? Kuwait? The Eastern Bloc? Afghanistan? Nations always love Americans when we rescue them from tyranny. The price of freedom is never free.

Leftists: Polls show Americans are more concerned about the threat from al-Qaeda than from Iraq.
Answer: It's not a war against Al Qaeda. It's not a war against Iraq. It's a war against terrorism. Anywhere we find it. One nation at a time.

Leftists: American opinion is against the war.
Answer: No, it's not. A majority of Americans want to fight now, not later.

The world has a very short memory. The Germans seem to forget that we basically don't care what they say because they should keep their mouths shut after what Hitler did. Germany's lucky that we don't merge it with Russia and never let it be it's own nation again. France seems to forget that we've bailed them out of 2 world wars, both started by Germany whom they support. Europe should be licking our toes because we keep their economy going. The French don't want to support us or give us aid by signing any treaty in coalition, but they do so knowing that if they get attacked or invaded we'll be the first ones to help them. Sleazebags.

I think this is quite accurate and fairly amusing. I am form the UK and our country is full to the brim of Anti-Americans and Anti-Semites. THey rant about bombimg Israel or that we should be inspecting US WMDs. Get real. Would they rather trust the USa or Saddam Hussein, Iran, Syria, North Korea? Tony Blair has done the right thing by supporting the US
Whent he US chased AL Qaeda out of Afghanistan people in Britain were sayign how this was illegal and would acjhieve nothing and that the USA should ask the Taleban nicely to please hand bin Laden over. As if the Anti USA Taleban wuld do such a thing. If anti-war/anti-Americans think Saddam is so great why don't they just go and live in Iraq.

The british seem to think that they know everything because they have BBC, which they consider to be accurate and unbiased. BBC is so far left it's off the edge of the world, saying propagandist crap like all the educated people are anti-war, and that US soldiers kill babies in urban combat. You do the math, europeans are easily brainwashed.

ok THe BBC is a bit lefty but it does not say that US soldiers kill babies. Soem politicians disliked the BBc when during hte Falklands War when they would say. things like "THe British, if we are to believe them..." . Others call them the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation or B------s Broadcasting Communism.
Yet despite these minor criticisms the BBC is still the premier news service in the world. WHould you trust Murdoch's Fox news or MSNBC who all have commercial interests?

Jeremy,

As a fellow Houstonian, I first would like to apologize to you for the name calling. I don't believe that helps in any kind of debate. Unlike a lot of anti-war folk I've heard, you seem to have a well thought out aversion to war with Iraq, even though you support the concept in general. I would agree with you that war is a horrible thing to be entered with much trepidation and yes, after much debate. There is nothing wrong with discussing the issue and constantly questioning the motives behind the war. My yardstick has always been that war is ALWAYS evil. But sometimes it is the lesser of two evils. So it is with Iraq. No doubt good and innocent people on both sides will lose their lives, but what is the cost of not going to war?

I think World War II proved that it is not wise to leave a dictator in power who is proven to hold little to no value on the lives of fellow human beings, even if it means a few more lives are lost in the process. History has proven time and time again, that the surest path to war comes to those who try to avoid it "at all costs." The decision must be made at some point as to wether conditions warrant the use of deadly force.

Even the little I've seen justifies deadly force in this case. Each point taken by themselves would not be a case for war, but taken as a whole, I cannot see how anyone would want to even think of a solution that enables Saddam Hussein to remain in power. And if he will not step down on his own, the only other solution is war.

1) At the end of the Gulf War, Hussein agreed to terms of a cease fire. No one is asserting that he has met those terms. It is clear that he has not met those terms.

2) His most common objection to inspections, prior to agreeing to them recently (basically at gunpoint,) has been that the inspectors were infiltrated with American spies. Why should he be worried about spies if he has no serious weaponry?

3) Peaceful means have been tried for 12 years and have failed miserably. What would 12 years more accomplish if all Hussein is doing is biding his time?

4) Hussein has not only shown disrespect for his neighbors by invading Kuwait, but once the Gulf War started tried he attacked Israel who wasn't even a participant in the war. I'll disuss his reasons when we get to the question of wether or not attacking Iraq will inflame neighboring Arab countries. But the fact is, he attaked a non-combattant for his own purposes.

5) The most important point is Hussein's proven lack of respect for Human life. It is no secret that he kills his political enemies and their families. He has been brutal both to his nation's enemies and to people within his own borders. Anyone who gasses his own people without compunction will have no qualms about hiding weapons labs and using them against neighbors and the United States as soon as he is ready to do so.

6) President Bush and Secretary Powell have both come out with some very strong evidence that Hussein is hiding something terrible.

You are concerned about the question as to wether attacking Iraq would inflame the arab world. I think the evidence to that is strongly to the contrary. In the Gulf War, Hussein launched several SCUD missiles at Israel specifically hoping to unite the Arab world against Israel's one ally, the United States. But his intention failed. He did not incite the arabs to revolt. The second thing that indicates that your fears are unfounded is the invasion of Afganistan. The ruling party of Afganistan, the Taliban was a very islamic fundamentalist regime. Yet invading Afganistan didn't unite the Arab world. Your assessment that doing so was justified by 9-11 is not completely accurate. President Bush made the same kind of case about ivading Afganistan as he has been making about invading Iraq. It could as easily have been argued in Arab circles that Afganistan was an innocent bystander and didn't cause 9-11 so the US was not justified in picking on a weaker arab country like that. Why would ivading Iraq, who's president isn't even liked by the islamic fundamentalists cause unrest among the arabs? Why should someone come to the aid of someone who's tried to manipulate them over the years?

The only reasons we have seen OBL backing Hussein is that they have a common enemy. In that context, the only people who will be put against the United States are the people who are already convinced that we are "the great satan."

Lastly, about France and the Hollywood idiots. I would admit that we may be a little hard on France and Germany, but it does seem a little suspicious that even in the face of overwhelming evidence, they think that more of the same will work. It is very easy to believe that these nations have something going under the table and if so, that would be a violation of every anti-war treaty ever written since World War I.

It is also frustrating for those of us who watch political events to see the liberal Hollywood crowd do something so blatantly partisan. Those people will live with the backlash from this for a long time. It's also frustrating to see the world demanding that the President do more to avoid war, but no one seems to be saying a word to Hussein except those who are gearing up for war.

Saddam Hussein is an evil man and must go. If it takes war to do so, I am all for it.

Here's a great Op/Ed about the Hollywood Half-Wits from the Wall Street Journal...
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110003188
(Sorry, but I'm no good at html codes...)

Ya know, i recently had a debate in schoool about whether or not to go to war with iraq; I wish i had come to this site for a source! Great views and comments guys, Ill definitly remember these and expand on them with my own thoughts.......Also, the french do not have a say, even if they think they do,after all, whos going to save them when/if Terrorism/war strikes their land????I believe it would be the Americans who fought and died time and time again for those who were abandoned by their bretheren,screw the french. Oh and a note on Korea, seeing as they are getting a good amount of attention.

The North wants nuclear capabilities, the south wants our troops out???Move out our troops and nuke em both........Happy Saint Pats Day.

As a fellow Houstonian, I first would like to apologize to you for the name calling. I don't believe that helps in any kind of debate. Unlike a lot of anti-war folk I've heard, you seem to have a well thought out aversion to war with Iraq, even though you support the concept in general.
---

Thanks, Bruce -- I appreciate the civility, believe me, and the reasoning behind your responses. Heck, if people can't argue about this stuff in a friendly, reasonable way, then what's the point? (Of course, the argument itself is largely academic at this point, after Sunday...)

---
I would agree with you that war is a horrible thing to be entered with much trepidation and yes, after much debate. There is nothing wrong with discussing the issue and constantly questioning the motives behind the war. My yardstick has always been that war is ALWAYS evil. But sometimes it is the lesser of two evils. So it is with Iraq. No doubt good and innocent people on both sides will lose their lives, but what is the cost of not going to war?
---

True, and the above is generally my stance, as well -- in this case, though, I believe that the risk of lives lost by *going* to war is far greater than the alternative.

---
I think World War II proved that it is not wise to leave a dictator in power who is proven to hold little to no value on the lives of fellow human beings, even if it means a few more lives are lost in the process. History has proven time and time again, that the surest path to war comes to those who try to avoid it "at all costs." The decision must be made at some point as to wether conditions warrant the use of deadly force.
Even the little I've seen justifies deadly force in this case. Each point taken by themselves would not be a case for war, but taken as a whole, I cannot see how anyone would want to even think of a solution that enables Saddam Hussein to remain in power. And if he will not step down on his own, the only other solution is war.
---

Not necessarily; earlier on, I mentioned that I thought regime change *was* possible, but only if it came from within. A few folks brought this up last fall, but it didn't make much of an impact, unfortunately: nonviolent resistance by the Iraqi people could bring Saddam Hussein down without the need for foreign intervention or a regional crisis. It's worked before, in Chile, in the Philippines, and most recently, in Romania. Ceaucescu was easily as horrible a dictator as Saddam, and he was brought down by his own people. I would whole-heartedly support a U.S. effort to back freedom from *within* Iraq, and I believe it's possible. (And to the accusation somebody threw out earlier that I want the Iraqis and Kurds to die fighting "our" battles, that's not at all what I'm saying. I don't doubt that people would die in a civilian uprising, but I guarantee you that far fewer would die than will die in an extended bombing campaign followed by a ground war.)

Heck, if it came down to it, for the amount of money we're going to spend on this war, we could almost certainly *buy* Saddam's officers -- who's going to hesitate to turn over their boss (who a lot of Iraqi military think is a bad guy, as well) to an international tribunal in exchange for a reward of, say, $10 million? It's a lot less than what this war would ultimately cost, and it could be done with little bloodshed; why aren't we trying it? Then once Saddam's gone, we could channel some more of that unused military money into fixing up Iraq's infrastructure and really helping the people. With the above, that's two alternatives to war right there, and either one's at least as feasible as Rumsfeld and Perle's assertion that taking down Iraq by force will cause democracy to bloom everywhere else in the Middle East.

I think that the comparison of Saddam to Hitler has been overused, as well. Hitler controlled a country with the biggest military and strongest economy in post-WWI Europe, and to an extent he was waging war to re-establish Germany in areas that he thought had been "taken" from them in previous wars. He made no real secret of his expansionist policies; Saddam Hussein, by contrast, has only attempted invasion twice, once attacking Iran and once attacking Kuwait, and both those instances were limited and brought about by different circumstances -- Iran and Iraq had been at one another's throats since the '50s over the area along the Shatt al Arab, and Iraq invaded Kuwait because the Kuwaiti government had begun slant-drilling Iraqi oilfields from the Kuwaiti side of the border. Evil though he is, I've never heard Saddam make any statements about conquering or taking over the Middle East. His pan-Arab politics have been just talk, especially compared to somebody like Egypt's Nasser.

Do I think it's wise to leave Saddam, a despicable dictator, in power? No. I'd rather see him taken down, too; it's just that I don't think that pursuing that goal in the way we are will be worth the price in lives, both American and Iraqi, that it's going to cost.

---
1) At the end of the Gulf War, Hussein agreed to terms of a cease fire. No one is asserting that he has met those terms. It is clear that he has not met those terms.
---

Agreed. I've never disputed this one; he's definitely breached the terms of the ceasefire. I did read somewhere recently, though, that some analysts have claimed Saddam blew off the ceasefire agreement because both Bush Sr. and Clinton refused to guarantee that they would lift sanctions on Iraq even if he *did* comply. Can't be sure on that one...

---
2) His most common objection to inspections, prior to agreeing to them recently (basically at gunpoint,) has been that the inspectors were infiltrated with American spies. Why should he be worried about spies if he has no serious weaponry?
---

You've got a good point, here, but isn't it possible that him pointing the finger at inspectors and calling them spies is more just machismo and tough-guy rhetoric than anything else? And hey, they *were* spies, which means that we were breaking international law by sending them in with the inspectors, anyway -- we used the info they got us to pick targets for Operation Desert Fox, thereby discrediting the inspection team and causing the head of the team to pull them out of Iraq. Our spies weren't there to inspect for weapons, but to gather intel to help us hit him later on; I'd say that's cause to point some fingers.

---
3) Peaceful means have been tried for 12 years and have failed miserably. What would 12 years more accomplish if all Hussein is doing is biding his time?
---

Biding his time 'til when? He's 66 this year; twelve years from now he'll be 78, and few dictators have ever lived to a ripe old age (okay, Castro's one of the exceptions). Left alone, his power will fade and dissipate -- just look at Qaddafi. The man was the scourge of the world in the '80s, the guy who was about to launch a nuclear arsenal right at America and responsible for arming and sponsoring everybody from the PLO to the IRA, and now he's handing over the terrorists responsible for the Lockerbie bombing, improving relations with the West, and promoting African self-government. I doubt Saddam would necessarily go the same route, but I do think that he was unlikely to become *more* powerful or influential if we had left him alone (now, admittedly, after all the threats and buildup, an American pullout would do his prestige good, but *we* are as responsible for that as Saddam).

And I think that the peaceful means you've mentioned have *not* failed -- the Iraqi army is a shadow of what it was even immediately following the first Gulf War, and a large part of that has been due to pressure from external sources, sanctions, and inspections. The CIA released a report last year saying that Iraq is less a threat now than it has been in 10 years, and those peaceful means are responsible for that.

---
4) Hussein has not only shown disrespect for his neighbors by invading Kuwait, but once the Gulf War started tried he attacked Israel who wasn't even a participant in the war. I'll disuss his reasons when we get to the question of wether or not attacking Iraq will inflame neighboring Arab countries. But the fact is, he attaked a non-combattant for his own purposes.
---

Yeah, he did, and I'd bet that he did it in order to draw the U.S. away from dislodging him from Kuwait. A sleazy tactic, but it only lends credence to the fear that this war *could* blow up into something bigger (see below for more). Besides that, aren't a lot of countries are going to see a U.S. invasion of Iraq as extremely disrespectful, as well? We're acting the part of the bully here, too.

---
5) The most important point is Hussein's proven lack of respect for Human life. It is no secret that he kills his political enemies and their families. He has been brutal both to his nation's enemies and to people within his own borders. Anyone who gasses his own people without compunction will have no qualms about hiding weapons labs and using them against neighbors and the United States as soon as he is ready to do so.
---

Again, I agree. He's a horrible, evil man, and he's murdered his people on numerous occasions. I'd love to see him removed from power -- but doing it the way we're about to is likely to make things worse for the Iraqi people, if not just keep it more of the same. The Turkish army is already moving troops across the border and taking territory in northern Iraq (they have been since last fall), and once they're there, they're likely to use any beachhead to try to obliterate the Kurds, who're the people we're saying we want to help to begin with.

I don't want us to fight a war to liberate Iraq only to turn around and put up a new puppet dictator and let Turkey have its way with northern Iraq. Take a look at the folks we're talking to about running Iraq, by the way; these are bad, bad, bad people, some possibly as bad as Saddam himself. We've got a former General who kicked a Kurdish child to death during the al-Anfal campaign (he's currently under investigation for war crimes), a second, younger General also possibly responsible for gassing the Kurds, a convicted fraudster and failed banker, an heir to the Iraqi throne who hasn't been there since he was two, and a lot of people wearing very nice suits who do *not* represent the majority of the population and who can't even agree with one another, much less with their would-be constituents. This doesn't look to me like we're going to end the tyranny in Iraq, but rather to hand the reins of power to somebody new.

---
6) President Bush and Secretary Powell have both come out with some very strong evidence that Hussein is hiding something terrible.
---

I don't think so. I've watched the press conferences held by both Bush and Powell, and they've never offered any kind of *concrete* evidence of WMDs in Iraq. Of the evidence Colin Powell came out with, the much-touted British report was taken from a 12-year-old analysis of the region done by a grad student, and the chemical weapons factory shown in the satellite pictures was A). in the no-fly zone, outside Saddam's control, B). controlled by an Islamic group that had been fighting both Saddam *and* the Kurds, C). pretty much in ruins when journalists visited it, and D). under surveillance for months beforehand, when we could easily have taken it out (it's in our no-fly zone, remember). And then there's the dreaded aluminum tubes, which the IAEA, the people who are the absolute *authority* on making nuclear weapons, say aren't suitable for that purpose. Both the IAEA and Hans Blix have resolutely stated that they found no evidence of WMDs, and in his team's report Blix actually went so far as to say Iraq had been helpful.

So I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced. Saddam may indeed still have chemical or biological weapons, but I think the Bush administration has done a very poor job of bringing any of it to light, if it's there; I become very skeptical when people swear up and down that "we know it's there" and yet can't actually point to it. If, as Bush asserts, we *know* Saddam has nukes, anthrax, ricin, or what-have-you, then for God's sake, let's guide the inspectors to it, escorted by troops if necessary -- if we know where it is, we don't need to start a full-fledged war to get rid of it, and Saddam's hand would be completely exposed without the need for carpet-bombing or house-to-house combat in the streets of Baghdad.

---
You are concerned about the question as to wether attacking Iraq would inflame the arab world. I think the evidence to that is strongly to the contrary. In the Gulf War, Hussein launched several SCUD missiles at Israel specifically hoping to unite the Arab world against Israel's one ally, the United States. But his intention failed. He did not incite the arabs to revolt. The second thing that indicates that your fears are unfounded is the invasion of Afganistan. The ruling party of Afganistan, the Taliban was a very islamic fundamentalist regime. Yet invading Afganistan didn't unite the Arab world. Your assessment that doing so was justified by 9-11 is not completely accurate. President Bush made the same kind of case about ivading Afganistan as he has been making about invading Iraq. It could as easily have been argued in Arab circles that Afganistan was an innocent bystander and didn't cause 9-11 so the US was not justified in picking on a weaker arab country like that. Why would ivading Iraq, who's president isn't even liked by the islamic fundamentalists cause unrest among the arabs? Why should someone come to the aid of someone who's tried to manipulate them over the years?
---

First, because it sets a precedent. Much as they despise Saddam Hussein, nobody likes an outsider intervening in their affairs, and none of the other Arab countries in the region want us to turn our guns on them next (i.e., Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.) They supported the U.S. in the first Gulf War because Saddam invaded a much smaller impotent neighbor; that kind of justification's not there this time 'round. Why didn't Arabs everywhere rise up against the U.S. when Iraq attacked Israel back then? Because they knew strategically that it would be dumb, and it would cause a lot of havoc. Don't get me wrong -- I don't think that any *nation* is going to explode into violence, but that the *people* will. 9/11 proved that the people who're a real threat often don't have ties to one specific country, and after the invasion of Afghanistan, nobody's eager to have themselves seen as a base for terrorists. I don't think that Syria would dare do anything towards Israel, no, but Hezbollah, which happens to be sheltered by Syria, has already threatened to launch missile attacks against the Israelis if the U.S. goes to war with Iraq. The leaders of the Arab nations of the world will most likely do a lot of yelling (which, by the way, they're already doing), but they don't control the kids in the street with the AK-47s and Molotov cocktails who might actually make fighting the U.S. or Israel a reality.

As for Afghanistan, there're a few things missing: for one, Afghanistan is not an Arab nation (heck, neither's Iran, if you want to be picky about it). Muslim, yes, but not Arab, and I'd say that that fact may have made a difference in the Arab world's reaction. Also, I think that the evidence for attacking Afghanistan was *much* more real -- we weren't waging a preventive war, but responding to an attack. I'm all for hitting somebody back if they hit us first. What I don't see the sense of is striking first, before the threat becomes explicit. If Iraq, rather than Afghanistan, had sheltered al-Qaeda and bin Laden and enabled them to carry out their plans, then the case for war on Iraq would be justified, to my mind. Still extremely dangerous, but justified. The third difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is that the Arab world was as horrified as we were about 9/11 (don't buy the newscasts; most Arabs were NOT dancing in the streets) -- they knew that something had to be done, just like we did, and they were especially glad that we weren't going to do it to *them*. And finally, you have to keep in mind the U.S. presence that this war will mean -- if we're going to do all that we say we're going to (which I have my doubts to begin with), U.S. troops will be stationed in Iraq, a country central to the Middle East, for years to come. In a time when every other Arab nation is trying to get our soldiers *off* their soil, nobody wants one of the biggest countries on the block to essentially become one giant American military base.

---
The only reasons we have seen OBL backing Hussein is that they have a common enemy. In that context, the only people who will be put against the United States are the people who are already convinced that we are "the great satan."
---

This is where I think a lot of people are being overly optimistic. Even several retired CIA officers have come out and warned that a war in the Middle East right now (for the reasons we're giving) could cause disaffected Muslims to flock to the ranks of groups like al Qaeda (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030209-020607-8252r). The initial bloom of relief and joy at Iraq's liberation will give way over time to a regional disgust with the U.S., as the occupying regime in Iraq -- that's the way it's worked throughout history. Everybody loves a liberator, but nobody likes an occupation force; ask anybody in Belfast, Beirut, or Palestine if it's fun having tanks on the street every day. A situation like that *breeds* terrorism. Take a look at Palestine in particular -- for each Palestinian killed in an operation by the Israeli army, more join up. There are probably a *ton* of underlying reasons, psychologically, but I'd say that one of the most important is that the people who live in the Territories feel like they're being controlled by an outside force. Heck, I lived in Germany in the '80s, and even some Germans resented the presence of the G.I.s.

Now, as for Osama, I'm not sure I'd say calling Saddam a "Muslim apostate" and encouraging all good Muslims everywhere to kill the guy is any kind of an attempt to cozy up to everybody's least favorite dictator...sure, we're the common enemy, but I don't think bin Laden's doing any backing of Saddam Hussein. He's just pleased to see us ready and willing to blow one another to pieces, I'm sure.

---
Lastly, about France and the Hollywood idiots. I would admit that we may be a little hard on France and Germany, but it does seem a little suspicious that even in the face of overwhelming evidence, they think that more of the same will work. It is very easy to believe that these nations have something going under the table and if so, that would be a violation of every anti-war treaty ever written since World War I.
---

And I'll buy that; I'm just saying that it's a possibility on *all* sides. Like I said earlier, there's as much evidence linking Rumsfeld to Saddam as there is Chirac. Not a lot of people seem to remember it, but after Iraq's attack on Halabja using chemical weapons, Congress voted to suspend arms sales to Iraq, rightly, because of the massive civilian casualties...and the White House defeated the resolution. Regardless of Saddam's atrocities, the U.S. government had no problem selling him chemical and biological weapons right up until the invasion of Kuwait. The majority of Americans have good reasons at heart for wanting to topple Saddam, I know, but we're hypocritices if we're trying to say that France and Germany are dirty and we're spotlessly clean in this mess.

---
It is also frustrating for those of us who watch political events to see the liberal Hollywood crowd do something so blatantly partisan. Those people will live with the backlash from this for a long time. It's also frustrating to see the world demanding that the President do more to avoid war, but no one seems to be saying a word to Hussein except those who are gearing up for war.
---

That may be because those of us on the anti-war side don't see much point; Saddam Hussein's not my ruler, I can't influence what he thinks or does (of course, I probably don't have much influence with the White House either, despite my being American, but that's just my cynicism showing). Speaking out against the war in your own country *can* have an effect; speaking out against another country's dictator in your own country is yelling into the wind and accomplishes nothing. I'd take this back to what I said before about change from within -- if the Iraqi people stood up and told Saddam to take a hike, I'd back them 100%, and so would the rest of the world. *They* have that power, not me; I only have power (and not much of it) in my own little corner of the globe.

I also think that the Bush administration have tilted the table from the very beginning; we started out with such belligerent, aggressive posturing that it never really felt like there *was* any option other than war, diplomatic or otherwise. If you'd asked an Iraqi on the street last summer, I'd wager they'd have told you that the U.S. would attack no matter *what* they did, because that's the message we've been broadcasting out to the world -- only our will matters, the U.N. is just a formality, and we're going to go in and "get things done" no matter what. We've put the burden of proof on Saddam since day one, which makes it very difficult for the Iraqis and the inspectors to say that he has complied fully; if you tell somebody who you think swiped your wallet that they have to prove to you that they *didn't* steal your wallet, and they say they didn't, well, even after searching their house you're still going to *assume* they've hidden it someplace that you can't find, aren't you?

I'm a realist. We're going to go to war, that's for certain. Even though I've protested (and will continue to protest) the war, I'm well aware that it's going to happen either way -- I just hope that people keep talking about it and discussing it, because maybe that'll keep the war from dragging on and prevent some of the bad stuff that could happen afterwards.

If you're interested, by the way, here're a couple of links about the "fight-from-within" idea:

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue;=soj0209&article;=020910
http://www.monkeytime.org/archive/Feb2003b.html#nonviolent
http://onehandclapping.blogspot.com/2002_09_29_onehandclapping_archive.html#82338864

(Note, by the way, that only one of those, the Monkey Media Report post, is an anti-war lefty site; the original piece was in the Christian magazine _Sojourners_, and the guy who writes One Hand Clapping's fairly pro-war, I believe.)

When it comes to the Hollywood folks, well, everybody's welcome to their opinion, in my book, including Hollywood celebs. But hey, it works both ways: I can tell you I won't be buying any more Kid Rock CDs or watching Dennis Miller again, for my part... ;^>

---
Saddam Hussein is an evil man and must go. If it takes war to do so, I am all for it.
---

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, then. Under different circumstances, at a different time, maybe I'd be with you, but I can't condone the war as it stands.

Thanks,

Jeremy

Wow! And to think that the media is parading that this war is unpopular. Ok, only 1 comment.
The whole french would be speaking german and all that. They wouldnt be speaking at all if the US (who at the time, didnt want to get involved.. Notice that that was our biggest mistake) didnt liberate france.. the french (cant even bring myself to capitalize it) are not/ were not what hitler would have allowed to live.. ya know not pure blooded arian... so france, count the fact that you CAN count your blessings.

Whomever said it, said it best.. 'now we know who our "friends" really are.' Let the rest of the world say "Geezz he really did have weapons of mass distruction... oh, i though those rape rooms were just some twisted fantasy, and those fathers didnt have heads to begin with" when this is all over...

The French just called...
They want to know if you have to be an Iraqi to surrender or can anyone do it?

The only thing I'm afraid of is Bush accidently giving the order to bomb Chirac instead of saying Iraq. We're coming for ya Saddam! Baghdad has already signaled it's anti-aircraft sirens and will probably be bombed by noon tommorrow.

I woudl just like to mention to the frenchman who said that we wouldn't be a country if it weren't for the french. That may be true, but the ONLY reason that the french came to our aid was to piss off the brits.Your country's motives weren't exactly altruistic, were they? By the way, when you mention Napoleon, you also didn't mention that Napoleon, the leader of your country then, wasn't even french. He was from Corsica. Your countrymen of yesteryear also forced one of great leaders to buy his one and ONLY coon skin cap because even back when we were just a few colonies, the french, and European, view of the American citizen was way off base. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised that the misinformation still continues to this day about what horrible people that the US has, and how backwards we are when it comes to anything cultural. However, this Sentiment comes from the self same people who can't seem to do well without the youngest superpower of the world. We pour money into your country, and you repay us by being jerks. Thanks ever so much. We now know that our true friends are the ones who have their eyes open. You also might want to refresh your memory on the war on terrorism...how many times did we bomb known al-quaida hideouts? How many people died at THEIR hands? Some of them even your own countrymen. You are very welcome for making their deaths not in vain. hmmmm sounds like war to me. I would also like to mention that when you guys bent over backwards to accomodate the french hating terrorist in the 80s and 90s, it justy showed that you will take it up the bum for anyone, but especially for those who want to kill you and all of your people in the name of God...the very same God that you probably worship at your very nice cathedral. I dont' know about you, but I was always taught that God is a LOVING God and that People using the flimsy excuse of religion for a war, they are nothing more than tyrants throwing a temper tantrum because they are not in charge of the whole world . When germany was well on it's way to conquering Europe, who came to your aid? EVERYONE who finally got tired of watching people die at the hands of lunatics. Oh yeah, By the way, je parles francais parce-que je suis une francofile. Mais, je comprende que vous declarez avec extravagance votre fausse idee. Merci parce-que je vous moques. :o)

I just wanted to mention to those who wholeheartedly believed that going to Iraq was a bad idea...how bad must it be over there when the BEST thing you can possibly do to preserve your life is to surrender to the enemy, "KNOWING" that the enemy likes to torture your people and eats your children for breakfast? That is what these people are told, to explain how horrible of a people we are...and they STILL prefer to go to that kind of treatement rather than what they have been living with. How ironic is that?

By the way, did you know that Saddam ordered some of his troops to stay behind in Baghdad, not to protect it from the invading army, but to KEEP THE PEOPLE THERE? That shows that they KNEW that the fall of Baghdad was a foregone conclusion. How wonderful is the government that does what it can to put it's people directly into the path of danger with NO hope of escape? Yet some of you people SUPPORT this man. Do you need your head examined?

Do we have any of Saddam's supporters left here that would like to become a human shield? I believe the last plane is heading out...your chances of helping the world to become a better place is slipping away!

Jeremy,

In the interest of (an attempt at) brevity, I'm not going to quote you directly but just respond to what you said. Sorry it's taken so long to respond to you, but I have been out sailing an old Sailing Ship in Galveston.

It would seem that the anti-war folk don't see the discussion as academic. I find that sad. The committment has been made and they are doing our country a grave disservice by continuing to protest using such gutter methods. As someone who has felt the need to protest on other issues, I'm sorry you feel the need to align yourself with people who can't respect the rights of other people in their protests.

The main point is that the Iraqi people have tried to overthrow Saddam Hussein, but were unable to. Unarmed peasants were no match for a well trained well armed military force. Whole villages were destroyed for supporting the effort to try to overthrow Hussein. Just the fact that Hussein received %100 of the Iraqi vote is proof positive that the people have lost their will to fight him. 12 years ago, when they tried they expected our support. But because of UN political rangling we were unable to support the people of Iraq against Hussein. So many Iraqis died in horrible ways as a result. Now we can and must go in and right the wrong we did to the Iraqi people by not helping them after the Gulf War. I applaud president Bush's moral courage in not waiting for UN approval. The UN failed the Iraqi people all those years ago and failed them again today. I haven't had a chance to look at those web sites you referenced... I wanted to get a response to you so you didn't feel like I was ignoring you... but I can't see how they have anything to add.

I couldn't disagree with you more about comparing Hussein to Hitler. I think the analogy is perfect. Adolf Hitler did not gain power in a country with a first rate military, he gained power in a nation where international law forbade the existence of a military. One by one, Hitler defied those laws and built an impovershed, war-torn country into a great military power. It was only after he first ignored League of Nations sanctions against Germany holding a military that he began persuing an expansionist policy. Does this not strike you as similar to what Saddam Hussein is doing by ignoring UN resolutions on WMDs in Iraq?

You seem to think that Kuwait had the invasion coming becuase of the slant drilling they were doing, but the first few countries that Hitler invaded, he also claimed to have good reasons for, some of which led to the appeasement policies of the allies.

The truth is undeniable that both men had a profound disrespect for Human life. That alone is reason enough to get Saddam Hussein out of power. Even if he doesn't posess WMDs do you honestly believe a man like that would just go quietly into the night? Do you truly believe that he would completely abandon his persuit of WMDs just because the world finds it unpopular?

As to your comment about his age, remember he has two sons who, if they are not removed will be taking over after his death. They have proven to be as brutal and as defiant as their old man. This is not the clean cut case of containment you seem to think it would be. If we do not liberate Iraq we stand to hand the problem off to future presidents who may not have the kind of moral courage President Bush is showing.

Again about inflaming the terrorists... the main question is, where will they go? One by one the nations that supported terrorism are falling. Even those who may still have similar feelings about the United States will be forced to police their own nation in fear of having the United States police it for them, as in the case of Afganistan.

I think that once the nations that support Terrorism are a thing of the past, there will be no way for a terrorist organization to rise up and perform the kind of coordinated attack we saw on 9-11. Perhaps for a time we may see a slight rise in people willing to blow themselves up, but if there are no organizations showing them how to do so, providing the explosives and providing for their families afterward, terrorist attacks can only become fewer and further between.

As far as the Kurds are concerned, it is my hope and prayer that President Bush has the foresight when all the shooting is over to split Iraq and create an independant Kurdistan. Sure, Turkey won't like that, but then they forfieted all rights to northern Iraq when they refused to allow coalition forces to set up bases in Turkey... their allowing us to use their airspace is a little consolation, but I think it shouldn't give them any say into whether or not there can be a free Kurdistan.

We seem to agree on much. The goal is to provide a stable Saddam-free Iraq. On how we get there is where we disagree. Unlike you, I (and evidently President Bush as well) see no alternative but to take Iraq by force. What we do afterward is what is going to make the difference between being loved or hated by the Iraqi people and indeed the people of the rest of the Middle East. I truly believe that the war itself is incidental. If we do end up putting in a puppet dictator, no better than Saddam Hussein then we deserve the hatred and revision that will result. But if we succeed in liberating Iraq and installing a properly democratic society that serves as a model to the entire middle east, that is the Holy Grail here. That is what will begin to put an end to four thousand years of bloodshed in the Middle East. Somehow I think that will be another thing you and I agree on... but you seem to believe that the only thing we can leave behind is another dictatorship of one form or another. I don't and hope and pray that President Bush knows what needs to be done as well.

I've wasted enough work time, and I'm sure I've missed some of your points but I'll get to those when I can.

Bruce
Well said. Your eloquence and reason would be welcome on some of the more recent posts. Many there share your views. Will hope to see you there.

Thanks Greyhawk, life has been busy... will get there sooner or later. ;)

This morning on WBAP in Dallas, Mark Davis had a caller who said he had worked in
the military with chemical weapons of mass destruction for 6 years in the past.

He said that the public has no clue how devastating this stuff (VX gas, etc.) could
be in the wrong hands. He said that all they have to do is find one suicide
warrior, hook up a simple aerator on a vehicle, start driving and dispensing the
VX gas into the atmosphere, and drive until he/she is dead. He said this would make
9-11 look like a party, and that from one driver, it would take two months to bury all
of the dead.

I'm sorry we have to fight this war, but if we don't fight it, there is going to be h*ll to
pay down the road, and it doesn't take much intuition to "get it". If we wait for
Hollywood and France to "get it", we will probably find ourselves choked down on
the biggest UH-OH we have ever uttered.

I am also clear that we are going to be mired in the muck for many moons to come
trying to handle this world threat. So be it.

WHY EVERYONE IS SAYING THAT NAPOLEON IS NOT FRENCH BECAUSE HE'S FROM CORSICA....SO BUSH IS NOT AMERICAN BECAUSE HE'S FROM TEXAS...????
CORSICA IS A PART OF FRANCE
I KNOW THE US THAT'S WHY I'M TALKING...
NO ONE HERE EVER BEEN IN FRANCE BUT YOU R SURE TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT US.....
NOW THE WAR IS OVER....PLEASE TELL ME WHAT HAVE YOU WON????
DID YOU KILL SADDAM???
WHY IRAK IS NOW POORER THAN BEFORE
......BRAINWASHED..........POOR..........AMERICANS.......Mr BUSH IS THE BEST!!!!! I LOVE HIM....!!!!!!

YEAH I GOT THE LAST WORD!!!!!!!!!!!

if you love Bush, you are brain dead, or just a stupid red neck, ass hole, that is following an evil leader. Bush is by far the worst president the US has ever had. when the topic of our president comes up, im almost speechless at times becasue i dont even know where to begin. He is just like his father, he doesnt know how to deal with conflicts so he starts something that he wont be able to end, the war. I think that Bush needs to realize the pain he has put the US through. in the coming up elections for our president John Kerry has well earned it. i can personaly tell you after talking to him in the lodge of Baldy Mountain, he could improve SO many things, that i dont even know where to begin. all i can say is that bush is the worst thing that has ever happened to the office, and the damage he has done willl never go away. so thank you bush for being the BIGGEST ass hole that our country has ever seen. you have truely fucked almost everything up.