The War On Iraq has started.

[epicstruggle]

Sorry, Epic. Just because that guy is a libertarian candidate, doesn't make him any more correct.

In the US, we have rights because of the constitution, not because we're a republic.

1+1=2 me
2=1+1 you


The constitution creates/describes our government. The Bill of rights gives us our rights. A republic, will protect those rights no matter how large an opposition. Look at flag burning. You could get 60-80 percent of the population to be against it. But the government protects those that want to do it, protection of free speech. In a democracy a majority of people could just say no flag burning.

There is a difference Russ, you might just not see it. But this difference is very important when people start talking about how the government should treat public opinion.

later,

 

[Joe DeFuria]

In the US, we have rights because of the constitution, not because we're a republic.

HActually, to be clear, the founders understand we have rights because they are "endowed to us by our Creator".

The constitution merely guarantees their protection.

I'm pretty sure you were just being overly simplistic...but the difference is crucial to highlight in order for others to understand the real basis for our government.

 

[epicstruggle]

In the US, we have rights because of the constitution, not because we're a republic.

HActually, to be clear, the founders understand we have rights because they are "endowed to us by our Creator".

The constitution merely guarantees their protection.

I'm pretty sure you were just being overly simplistic...but the difference is crucial to highlight in order for others to understand the real basis for our government.

I was trying to be simplistic. I feel I have to make my arguments extremely plain, so that its easier to understand.

Lets see if quotes help out more.

The great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter a chance to do something stupid. -Art Spander

Democracy consists of choosing your dictators, after they've told you what you think it is you want to hear. -Alan Corenk

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. -H. L. Mencken

Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop people talking. -Clement Atlee

 

[RussSchultz]

In a democracy a majority of people could just say no flag burning.

...and they'd still have the constition and bill of rights to deal with!

Conversely, if enough of our elected officials decided that flag burning was wrong, they could amend the constitution and we'd be shit out of luck.

A republic guarantees you nothing in terms of rights. Certainly not by the sole virtue of being a republic.

 

[kyleb]

That said, I do tend to somewhat agree that it's supremely naive of "peace protesters" to get out and cry for peace without offering methods or alternatives for achieving it.

what i find naive is the idea that peace is something that can be acived completely. the best i can tell "peace" is an ideological perfection that we can only hope to come near, but due to our nautere as humans it is always something we will fall short of aciving. however, starting a war only draws us further away from that perfection that exists in peace, that is the route of methods and alternatives to war; and as long as you keep overlooking that basis, you will overlook the solutions that come from it as well.

It's very easy to say you want peace. Doesn't mean the person or people standing on the other side of the fence do.

i know, i can see you over there on the other side of the fence, why don't you come over here?

also, epicstruggle, i am sorry but i don't rightly have a simple answer for your question as i am from a lot of places. i was born in Kentucky and sense then lived in Alabama, Kansas, Texas, and D.C. as well as over seas in both Korea and Germany. i am currently back in Eastern Kansas, and the majority of my family reside in New Mexico, Texas and in central Kansas. oh, and i agree with Russ, your concepts of democracy and republic are rather shaky in my book.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

what i find naive is the idea that peace is something that can be acived completely.

Agreed. I also find it naive to believe that "peace" cannot be achieved though war.

however, starting a war only draws us further away from that perfection that exists in peace...

Mostly agree, which is why it's unfortunate that Sadam started this war back in the early 90s, and we're just now getting around to finishing it. It's also unfortunate that terrorists decided to "wake us up", because again, now that we're dragged into it, we're obligated to finish it.

 

[covermye]

4) Bush Tax Cut (est. cost: $600 Billion --> $2 Trillion over the next decade in lost revenue to the government)

Gotta call ya on this one, Natoma ol' buddy. We've been through this before. $600B in STATIC measurements doesn't ==$600B in revenue lost. In many proven cases, tax cuts (by static measurement of a "cut") result in overall revenue gains.

Am I arguing that this tax cut will result in actual tax revenue gains overall? Maybe... Maybe not. I'm not here to argue that. Just here to counter your "fear mongering" of going wtih that ridiculous figure for what the tax cut will cost in the long run.

This while we want a prescription drug benefit, shored up social security, $670 Billion Tax cut, on top of the $1.3 Trillion Tax cut from 2001, shored up Medicare, Homeland Security funding to shore up our defenses, etc etc etc. Where is the money coming from???

See above for the first part of this. Secondly, I DON'T want a prescription drug benefit or to shore up social security or medicare. Make the plans flexible for those of us that are fotrunate enough to not need them. I know I'm not going to... Why should I be forced into a government program that's costing my fellow taxpayers (and me) when I don't NEED it? Doesn't make sense to me.

I know the old argument is that if it's "voluntary", many will opt out that actually need the program. However, desperate times call for desperate measures... Come up with a set of rules and make it freakin' elective.

Anyhow, it's gonna be a tense couple of days it seems like. At the risk of ridicule from those "more educated" and "more intellectual" than me, I'm praying for the U.S. and its true friends that the military action is short and efficient as possible.

 

[Sabastian]

Tuff questions to think about.

Just what are rights anyway?

Something we are born with or something confered to us by the state?

 

[DemoCoder]

In a democracy a majority of people could just say no flag burning.

...and they'd still have the constition and bill of rights to deal with!

Conversely, if enough of our elected officials decided that flag burning was wrong, they could amend the constitution and we'd be shit out of luck.

A republic guarantees you nothing in terms of rights. Certainly not by the sole virtue of being a republic.

Russ, you are splitting hairs. It would be far easier to amend the constitution, if amendments could be voted on by the people like referendums and judges directly elected, OR WORSE, judicial review performed by democratic vote!


More often than not, the majority has been in favor of onerous restrictions on freedom, and it is only the fact that a republic makes it harder to change government that has prevented such a change. A republic ensures that any change only comes after a very long period of deliberation, cross-checked by many opposing forces, who are incented to pick apart any flaws in ideas from the competition.

On the other hand, the extreme form of democracy: American Idol meets CSPAN, whereby we vote directly on the regulations, laws, and rights over very short period of time is a prescription for tyranny.

The founders of the US chose a republic, electoral college, bicameral legistlative, appointment of judges, because they knew that pure democracy spells tragedy.

A republic doesn't guarantee you anything, but by virtue of adding several layers of grid-lock to changing the constitution and laws of this country, it removes our fundamental rights away from the daily whims of the populace more so than a direct system.

The constitution would be shredded by now were it not for the inherent "conservative" nature of the republic, to make change hard won.

 

[Silent_One]

Just what are rights anyway?

The traditional answers are: God, Nature, and Positive Law.

Alan Dershowitz offers a new and compelling souce of rights in his book "Shouting Fire" in which he shows how rights come from wrongs, how our long experience with human injustice provides the essential building blocks for a theory of justice and rights.

 

[RussSchultz]

I understand what you're saying, Democoder, about our form of government being better than a pure democracy, but I disagree that it is the "republic" part of our government that necessarily gives you that.

I'm disputing the statement that "in a republic you have rights that no-one can take away".

The first hundred and fifty years of our republic should be proof enough that it guarantees nothing in terms of rights.

 

[kyleb]

what i find naive is the idea that peace is something that can be acived completely.

Agreed. I also find it naive to believe that "peace" cannot be achieved though war.

well it can be achieved by entering a war to put a stop to it and if that were the case here i would be for the war. Iraq put down their swords back in the early 90s, i do not see what happened then as justification for what we are doing by any means. the only obligation i see that we have is to work to maintain the peace which we fought to restore, to do otherwise is counterproductive by all definitions of the word.

 

[John Reynolds]

It's very easy to say you want peace. Doesn't mean the person or people standing on the other side of the fence do.

i know, i can see you over there on the other side of the fence, why don't you come over here?

Just for the record, I've been a pacifist since I was a teenager. That does not, however, mean I'm completely against using violence if I deem the situation worth it. For example, the last fight I was in was with a bully who had slammed a small friend of mine around back in high school. My friend reluctantly told me about being repeatedly thrown into lockers by someone twice his size. I immediately found that person and kicked the crap out of him, even though I hated doing so. The end result, though, justified acting against my 'intellectual' position of non-violence, since that was the last time my friend had to suffer the humiliation and abuse from that person. Had that bully punched me or slammed me into the lockers, I probably would've walked away. You see the difference?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

well it can be achieved by entering a war to put a stop to it and if that were the case here i would be for the war.

It is the case here, and that's why I'm for the forcible removal of Sadam. Youn continually side-step my assertion that we are already at war, and that terrorism changes the very nature of the defintion of war.

Bush said essentially the same exact thing in his speech tonight. (And he's said it before) Or didn't you listen to the address? Or were you too busy mumbling under your breath and shaking your head "in sorrow for the monster that our country has become" at every statement without actually listenting to it?

Iraq put down their swords back in the early 90s,

They put them down, but didn't get rid of them, as per the agreement they signed precisely so we wouldn't have to do what we're about to do 12 years later.

i do not see what happened them as justification for what we are doing by any means.

Then you don't see any harm in violating agreed terms of cease fire. You have no respect for actual peace then.

surre the only obligation i see that we have is to work to maintain the peace which we fought to restore,

We've "worked" to that effect for 12 years. At what point do you say "it failed." Full peace was never restored. We stopped the fighting because of certain assurances from Iraq's regime which they NEVER followed through on.

to do otherwise is counterproductive by all definitions of the word.

You need to look no further than Sadam to blame for a lack of "counterproductiveness" in ALL definitions of the word.

 

[Natoma]

I think you probably meant to say that a majority of Americans would support a war with UN backing. If not, I hope I've corrected that little detail.

No, as I said, the number of Americans supporting a war would certainly increase with UN backing. (Which is no surprise.) However, the recent polls I've seen still have the majority supporting a war even without UN backing.

Certainly nothing like 60-70% disapproval that you claim.

The poll found that about half of adults, 47 percent, say they support military action to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power and disarm Iraq, even without the support of the United Nations Security Council. Almost four in 10, 37 percent, said the United States should do that only with full support of the Security Council; 13 percent said the United States should not take military action even if the Security Council agrees.

So it appears that things have become much closer in recent times, but it is still a pretty high proportion of the population that either doesn't want war at all, or doesn't want war without UN backing.

Certainly nothing like the majority that you are claiming would support this war without UN backing.

 

[Natoma]

<snip>

Oh ye of little faith...

First, the things that I listed were not points for debate. They were sticking points that are currently up in the air in terms of what the american 'populace,' or at least portions of it, want.

Second, the $370 Billion for the end of double taxation on dividends is new. The only acceleration is the tax rate from 2004, and that is only $121 Billion of the $670 Billion tax cut that Bush proposed for this year.

Link

The eyebrow raising thing is that while looking around for information on the actual statistics of the tax cut, some figures were saying $740 Billion, which I thought was odd. The other thing is that as I stated, the Bush Administration refuses to include a cost estimate for war with Iraq, as well as the cost estimates for the long term rehabilitation of Iraq, into this years budget.

I find that extremely suspicious.

Oh ye of little faith...

You're damned right. I have absolutely no faith in this administration or it's policies. Nothing that they have done to date, save for bombing Afghanistan (which any politician worth his/her salt would have done) has benefitted this country in any way shape or form, without alienating either our allies or even people in this nation.

2004 cannot come soon enough.

p.s.: I don't know if you live in NYC or not, but over the weekend a poll of NYC residents was released on NY1 News. It said that over 75% of NYC residents were against a unilateralist war with Iraq because we feared yet another attack on our soil, and we also fear that it will only increase the hatred against the US.

Considering that it is we the residents of NYC that bore the brunt of the first and deadliest terrorist attack on our continental soil, I think it makes the most sense that we actually have probably one of the most in-tune feelings with regard to what going in by ourselves does to our standing in the world.

Call it arrogant or whatever, but frankly we don't want to get attacked again. And right now, many people feel that the legitimacy offered by the UN would help allay some of that anger that will most certainly be thrust upon this country when we go in.

 

[Natoma]

4) Bush Tax Cut (est. cost: $600 Billion --> $2 Trillion over the next decade in lost revenue to the government)

Gotta call ya on this one, Natoma ol' buddy. We've been through this before. $600B in STATIC measurements doesn't ==$600B in revenue lost. In many proven cases, tax cuts (by static measurement of a "cut") result in overall revenue gains.

Am I arguing that this tax cut will result in actual tax revenue gains overall? Maybe... Maybe not. I'm not here to argue that. Just here to counter your "fear mongering" of going wtih that ridiculous figure for what the tax cut will cost in the long run.

What is known at this moment? That the Bush Tax cut will cost the government $600 Billion --> $2 Trillion in lost revenue. The reason for the higher number is that if the stock market does indeed return, the government will not actually be able to tap into that revenue in the form of dividend taxes (if the current plan is ratified as is).

This is not fear mongering as you put it. This is basic economics.

What is not known at this moment? That the Bush Tax cut will actually stimulate this economy.

So if anything, you're the one who is being supremely optimistic. If you want to call me a fear mongerer, so be it. I call it being a realist. When Bush's own Treasury Secretary came out and said he was highly skeptical of the new Bush Tax cut (this was right before he got canned btw), and even the people that he hired now to take his place have gone on record to state that they believed that it was the wrong way to go, something more is going on than just "fear mongering."

This while we want a prescription drug benefit, shored up social security, $670 Billion Tax cut, on top of the $1.3 Trillion Tax cut from 2001, shored up Medicare, Homeland Security funding to shore up our defenses, etc etc etc. Where is the money coming from???

See above for the first part of this. Secondly, I DON'T want a prescription drug benefit or to shore up social security or medicare. Make the plans flexible for those of us that are fotrunate enough to not need them. I know I'm not going to... Why should I be forced into a government program that's costing my fellow taxpayers (and me) when I don't NEED it? Doesn't make sense to me.

I know the old argument is that if it's "voluntary", many will opt out that actually need the program. However, desperate times call for desperate measures... Come up with a set of rules and make it freakin' elective.

Anyhow, it's gonna be a tense couple of days it seems like. At the risk of ridicule from those "more educated" and "more intellectual" than me, I'm praying for the U.S. and its true friends that the military action is short and efficient as possible.

As I stated to Joe, the points I brought up were not something that I meant to be debated. They were points that are currently up in front of Congress. These are things that are currently on the table that many powerful interest groups wish for.

Like it or not, a prescription drug benefit will eventually be passed. Like it or not, our coffers will be drained to support SS (and believe me I really don't like it, but it's going to happen). etc etc etc.

These are things that are going to drain our economy of resources in the next 5 to 10 years, and beyond. This country is trying to do all of these things, and support a tax cut, and rebuild two countries at the same time, most likely without a lot of international help and support in footing the bill.

That doesn't sound like a recipe for success. Something has got to give.

p.s.: Something already has given..

Afghanistan omitted from US aid budget

Gee, it seems that we're so gung ho about rebuilding Iraq that we're forgetting that we've got the first country we hit to rebuild as well. We've put roughly 300,000 troops into the gulf on the ready to attack Iraq, yet we haven't upped the amount of troops in Afghanistan even though the current government run by Hamid Karzai is begging for more troops to help police the country.

Al-Qaeda have become more and more bold in setting up camps and engaging our troops in Afghanistan, yet we are not sending more troops there to make a bold statement about our long term committment.

How can we possibly say to the world "Yea, we're gunna be in Iraq long term" when we can't even get Afghanistan right yet? We're gunna try to rebuild two countries at once? We're barely rebuilding one right now.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You're damned right. I have absolutely no faith in this administration or it's policies. Nothing that they have done to date, save for bombing Afghanistan (which any politician worth his/her salt would have done) has benefitted this country in any way shape or form, without alienating either our allies or even people in this nation.

I have more faith in this adminstration than any other since Reagan. Right...anything that Bush does that you agree with "Anyone would have done", but anything else is pure evil, right? Is it just so hard to give a conservative due credit for anyhing?

I have cited several cases where I think Bush did the wrong thing and didn't put his foot down hard enough. But he has displayed more leadership and is doing more great good for this country with Tax Cuts, refusal into being bullied into bullsh*t treaties like Kyoto, and his reponse to terrorism.

I shudder every time I think Gore came *this close* to serving office.

The fact that a liberal such as yourself can't wait for Bush's departure, speaks volumes to me.

2004 cannot come soon enough.

Yeah, the democratic primaries are going to be a circus..quite fun to watch who gets to be the sacrificial lamb. The democrats are already trying to figure out how to deal with someone like Al Sharpton who's getting significant support. Particularly from NYC. Lol...

p.s.: I don't know if you live in NYC or not,

I live about 25 miles west. Certainly no safe zone from a WMD attack on the city.

but over the weekend a poll of NYC residents was released on NY1 News. It said that over 75% of NYC residents were against a unilateralist war with Iraq because we feared yet another attack on our soil, and we also fear that it will only increase the hatred against the US.

SHOCK! The liberal mecca of the east cost voicing an anti-Bush sentiment? These are the people who helped elect Hillary Clinton to Office, right?

Considering that it is we the residents of NYC that bore the brunt of the first and deadliest terrorist attack on our continental soil, I think it makes the most sense that we actually have probably one of the most in-tune feelings with regard to what going in by ourselves does to our standing in the world.

I could also argue that it makes the most sense that since NYC has been hit by an attack, the NYC response is simply the intented result of the terrorist acts: fear is paralyzing you from responding.

But truthfully, I suspect the NYC reaction (assuming you're reporting it accurately, since your last poll report, I don't necessarily trust you on this), is simply a reflection of the extremely highly liberal nature of NYC. There are no surprises here.

My Aunt worked on Wall Street. She watched the towers fallfrom her window. He firm closed down after the attack and she lost her job. She went through therapy due to the attacks. She's just as every bit "affected" that you are, and yet she's for our intervention in Iraq. Go figure. Incidentally, now she's in business for herself.

Call it arrogant or whatever, but frankly we don't want to get attacked again.

Neither do I, which is why I prefer to disrupt terrorism whenever possible, as opposed to letting them go about their business.

Were you as deeply disturbed about our attacks on Afghanistan? If we get attacked again, what's to blame? A response to Iraq or Afghanistan? (And why not just blame it on the fact that Terrorists are scum-bags and attack or no attack on Iraq and Afghanistan, they are plotting on us Anyway. The past 12 appeasement years with Iraq didn't seem to deter either the bombing of the WTC, or 9/11...)

And right now, many people feel that the legitimacy offered by the UN would help allay some of that anger that will most certainly be thrust upon this country when we go in.

So, you're saying that if the UN approved the action, that terrorists would be inclined to say "OK, the UN approved it...so we won't retaliate." Or perhaps your fearful that our new "enemy" France will start lacing Champagne with Anthrax?

 

[kyleb]

Just for the record, I've been a pacifist since I was a teenager. That does not, however, mean I'm completely against using violence if I deem the situation worth it. For example, the last fight I was in was with a bully who had slammed a small friend of mine around back in high school. My friend reluctantly told me about being repeatedly thrown into lockers by someone twice his size. I immediately found that person and kicked the crap out of him, even though I hated doing so. The end result, though, justified acting against my 'intellectual' position of non-violence, since that was the last time my friend had to suffer the humiliation and abuse from that person. Had that bully punched me or slammed me into the lockers, I probably would've walked away. You see the difference?

i do, and i find your stance more noble than many, however i do not consider it pacifism. as a pacifist i belive that one should always work to resolved problems in a nonviolent manor and only respond with violence when directly in the face of violence itself. granted, situations will arise where keeping the peace is not an option as us humans are incapable of such perfection; but the more we support such philosophies of pacifism, the more likely it will be that others will do the same. but the less we teach the value of strong defense and exert our forces on the offence, the more we encourage that behavior as well.

 

[Natoma]

You're damned right. I have absolutely no faith in this administration or it's policies. Nothing that they have done to date, save for bombing Afghanistan (which any politician worth his/her salt would have done) has benefitted this country in any way shape or form, without alienating either our allies or even people in this nation.

I have more faith in this adminstration than any other since Reagan. Right...anything that Bush does that you agree with "Anyone would have done", but anything else is pure evil, right? Is it just so hard to give a conservative due credit for anyhing?

Actually I didn't say that everything that Bush has done is "pure evil" or whatever. I truly believe that he thinks that what he is doing to this country is in this country's best interests. It's quite easy to think you're doing the right thing and be *completely* wrong.

I have cited several cases where I think Bush did the wrong thing and didn't put his foot down hard enough. But he has displayed more leadership and is doing more great good for this country with Tax Cuts, refusal into being bullied into bullsh*t treaties like Kyoto, and his reponse to terrorism.

As I said before, I truly believe that he thinks he's doing what is best for this country. But it is quite easy to think that and be completely wrong (see tax cuts and the unilaterist walk out of Kyoto. God at least offer an alternative to the plan and propose it)

The response to terrorism? Ok, we got attacked. What politician worth his salt *wouldn't* have bombed Afghanistan and rid that country of the Taliban? It would have been political suicide to not do so.

Frankly I don't call Bush's "Texan gunslinger" attitude with regard to the rest of the world "leadership." It worked fine when black & white definitions of good vs evil were soothing to the nation after 9/11. But in the real world, diplomatic solutions and discussions are far more murky and require a great deal more finesse.

That's something that this administration has yet to master, and it has cost us, especially in this Iraq problem.

I shudder every time I think Gore came *this close* to serving office.

Funny thing is, while Gore certainly isn't a person that I wanted as my first choice for President, he *definitely* is the lesser of two evils between him and Bush.

The fact that a liberal such as yourself can't wait for Bush's departure, speaks volumes to me.

If Gore had won I seriously doubt you'd be sitting on your "high horse" and talking about "liberals" such as myself and speaking volumes about me.

2004 cannot come soon enough.

Yeah, the democratic primaries are going to be a circus..quite fun to watch who gets to be the sacrificial lamb. The democrats are already trying to figure out how to deal with someone like Al Sharpton who's getting significant support. Particularly from NYC. Lol...

I wouldn't call Sharpton's support significant. Far from it. Considering that none of the candidates is currently getting more than 8% of support from the democratic base (save for Joe Lieberman, and that's just because of his name recognition from 2000), if you want to call Sharpton's support significant based off of that, then so be it. Frankly I'm hoping Sharpton drops out.

He's an embarrassment.

but over the weekend a poll of NYC residents was released on NY1 News. It said that over 75% of NYC residents were against a unilateralist war with Iraq because we feared yet another attack on our soil, and we also fear that it will only increase the hatred against the US.

SHOCK! The liberal mecca of the east cost voicing an anti-Bush sentiment? These are the people who helped elect Hillary Clinton to Office, right?

Uhm, this isn't anti-Bush! The poll was saying that we don't want a war without UN support! If you're saying that flouting our obligations to the world negotiating bodies is "pro-Bush," that bullying our way through our negotiations is "pro-Bush," then so be it.

Some of us happen to have different opinions on the matter.

Considering that it is we the residents of NYC that bore the brunt of the first and deadliest terrorist attack on our continental soil, I think it makes the most sense that we actually have probably one of the most in-tune feelings with regard to what going in by ourselves does to our standing in the world.

I could also argue that it makes the most sense that since NYC has been hit by an attack, the NYC response is simply the intented result of the terrorist acts: fear is paralyzing you from responding.

No one is talking about being paralyzed and not being able to respond. Frankly, as I've stated many *many* times, I think that indeed Saddam does need to be removed. I *question* doing it by ourselves when looking at the cost, financially and mindshare wise with the rest of the world, of going it alone. I *question* the abilities of this administration to bring along our allies in this conflict, which they have made a complete mess of.

I completely supported the bombing of Afghanistan. Why? Because we went in with the support of the UN! We had *every* right to go into Afghanistan from 9/12 on, but we stayed our hand and went in *only* with the legitimacy of the world's recognized body behind us.

We didn't do that with Iraq. And *that* is what people in NYC are against.

But truthfully, I suspect the NYC reaction (assuming you're reporting it accurately, since your last poll report, I don't necessarily trust you on this), is simply a reflection of the extremely highly liberal nature of NYC. There are no surprises here.

Considering that I did report the results of that poll accurately, but had not seen the recent polls done in the past few days, your 'trust' or lack thereof is of little concern to me.

Here's one link from the regarding said poll:

http://www.signorile.com/articles/nyp68.html

A Newsday/NY1 poll conducted last week showed that in fact I’m among the majority of city residents, who have a markedly different opinion on the war than that of the country as the whole.

Only 19 percent of New Yorkers support a war without U.N. backing (as opposed to nearly half of all Americans in other polls). Another 32 percent support war only with the U.N.’s okay. And 42 percent of all New Yorkers are opposed to any war of any kind against Iraq, period.

My Aunt worked on Wall Street. She watched the towers fallfrom her window. He firm closed down after the attack and she lost her job. She went through therapy due to the attacks. She's just as every bit "affected" that you are, and yet she's for our intervention in Iraq. Go figure. Incidentally, now she's in business for herself.

As I said many times, I agree that Saddam needs to go. I think that anyone in their right mind agrees that he needs to go. It's *how* we get there that people disagree over.

Were you as deeply disturbed about our attacks on Afghanistan? If we get attacked again, what's to blame? A response to Iraq or Afghanistan? (And why not just blame it on the fact that Terrorists are scum-bags and attack or no attack on Iraq and Afghanistan, they are plotting on us Anyway. The past 12 appeasement years with Iraq didn't seem to deter either the bombing of the WTC, or 9/11...)

As I said, I was glad about our initial response in Afghanistan *because* we went in with the support of the UN. This time we are most certainly going in to a war situation *without* the UN.

And right now, many people feel that the legitimacy offered by the UN would help allay some of that anger that will most certainly be thrust upon this country when we go in.

So, you're saying that if the UN approved the action, that terrorists would be inclined to say "OK, the UN approved it...so we won't retaliate." Or perhaps your fearful that our new "enemy" France will start lacing Champagne with Anthrax?

Uhm, no. But there are quite a few moderates in the muslim world who would be more easily won over to our cause if we did indeed go into Iraq with the support of the world behind us.