masterfully written...5s

Wise, wise words Mr Alexander. A sincere 5555

what Alvin said. 555

I'm not just giving you fives, I'm blowing you kisses. Beautifully said.

If only it weren't true. Bush admits mistakes? Now THAT would be "Hell Freezes Over." Not to mention good for us in "The Long Run." Instead, every day with him is "another Tequila Sunrise," and every evening, "There's gonna be a Heartache Tonight."

Phil, other people have disagreed with other wars, such as Lindbergh and World War II. But most people can see the need to go after someone who killed 6 million Jews (one million children), and alot of people can see the need to go after those who seek to destroy us, now.

Phil, many people disagreed with wars such as the unjust war in Iraq. But most people can see the need to go after someone who killed thousands at the World Trade Center and a lot of people can see the need to go after Osama Bin Laden not those who had nothing to do with 9/11.

Phil, are you proposing that if we had shown more understanding to Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in the 1990s, that the World Trade Center terrorist attack would not have occurred? And are you are also suggesting that if we had been more generous with the Oil for Food program that Saddam Hussein was exploiting, he would have stopped shooting at American and British planes in the no fly zones and begun complying with UN resolutions? And are you further recommending that what UN Resolution 1441 meant by “serious consequences” was serious counseling for Iraq’s murderers?

JJ - I didn't read any of those things in this piece...At any rate, perhaps if an HONEST case had been made for this War (and PERHAPS there was an honest one to be made...I'm not entirely certain one way or the other...I certainly would not argue that Saddam Hussein was a good guy...a total and absolute murdering bastard...and his potential "heirs"...his cruel and psychopathic sons, Uday & Qusay...well, good riddance and applause for their bloody demise) AND PERHAPS if some realistic planning and execution of the "post-initial combat" phase had happened then we would not be locked in what appears to be either a long-term occupation....or a phony declaration of "Victory"....followed by the abandonment of those Iraqi's who believed and sided with us - and then their eventual imprisonment and/or slaughter....PERHAPS if those things had been done with some level of candor and concern....PERHAPS....BUT... those things were NOT done and DID NOT occur, did they?...So it's really quite pointless to speculate, isn't it? So...by extension, if one wanted to go on the assumption that there WAS good and just cause (and I don't concede that, but I do recognize it MIGHT have been possible) for this War, then one is left to make the conclusion that the current Administration, through hubris and arrogance and just overall foolishness and stupidity, managed to squander and nullify a prime opportunity for meaningful change in that region...Or perhaps you believe those folks have just done a 'Fantastic Job" plannning, managing and implementing our actions in this conflict? You know, War is a rather serious state of affairs and should not be entered into recklessly. A War entered into that was knowingly based on false and possibly fraudulent evidence and unsupportable speculation is about as serious and heinous a breach of trust and violation of a Chief Executive's Oath of Office as I can imagine..."Criminal Betrayal" is the term that comes to mind....Of course, it is POSSIBLE that what we actually have here is not fraud or deception, but merely a total lack of COMPETENCE...However, I don't hapen to find that thought particularly reassuring...please feel free to reply, I am curious as to whether you will wish to tether yourself to the actions of this Administration. But, hey, how do I really feel? OH...Phil...I thought you did a really good job in putting this piece together....5's ~ ~ ~

Paul, if you did not perceive my questions in the parody, how do you perceive "heeding the pain of the other guy" and "a bit more understanding" for terrorists? You can try to understand terrorists all you want and we still do not have the Twin Towers and the 3,000 people who died on 9/11.

I understand that it is your perception that the Iraqi War is not going well, but ... the Iraqi Constitutional Referundum was a success with a significant number of Sunnis taking part in the political process, Iraqis who had moved out of the country when Hussein was in power are moving back, Iraqis who are polled are showing confidence in their future, and they are investing in real estate. Among the other benefits of the War on Terror is Lybia abandoning its nuclear development program and surrendering its weapons of mass destruction. These things would not have happened without actions that some might call "bravado."

Once a guy's become a terrorist, and is blowing things (and himself) up, then it's too late. This isn't about trying to understand Osama or Saddam, it's about trying to understand the Iraqi/Afghan/Palestinian man in the street who feels that blowing himself to bits is in some way productive - before he decides to go down that route. What do you say to the civilians who have had family members killed because of the rash, unthinking, testosterone-fuelled bravado that says "some middle-eastern terrorists killed thousands of our citizens, so we're gonna kill thousands more AND WE DON'T CARE IF YOU WERE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TERROR ATTACKS, YOU'RE GONNA DIE ANYWAY"? And please don't say "Saddam was killing his own people", 'cause he was and they may well have hated him for it: so why should they *not* hate the troops that are "accidentally" killing civilians? Just because the other guy was bad, does not make our side good for fighting against him.

For years and years in Israel and Northern Ireland, we've seen that revenge killing has never made anything even one iota better: all it does is cycle round and round with more and more people dying - what makes you think that this revenge killing is going to be any different?

It's rare that I take "the other side," but whoever tried to mirror Royce's comments, even though I agree with your point, you were wrong to "put words in her mouth." She's right that we need to stop those who are trying to kill us. Where we disagree is as to who is actually capable of doing that. The Republicans think that Saddam Hussein was, and the Democrats know otherwise. But her point is still valid, and you shouldn't have gone after her with those comments. Having said that, let me also say that Iran and Syria -- right now -- are greater threats to us than Iraq ever was, but I don't trust the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld regime to wage war against them, especially since they're 0-for-2... and that includes Afghanistan, which is in near-total chaos right now.

John Jenkins is correct. Those who are against the "War of Civilization upon the Barbarian Terrorists" are simply cowards and appeasers, who won't learn until their necks are being sliced. (Notice how their French fellow pacifists are being so beautifully treated by Mohammedans.) President Bush would have MUCH preferred not to even battle domestic political rivals, much less to engage in war overseas. This was obvious to intelligent, mature, perceptive people who watched him at work from January to September 10 of 2001.

Lurker, how did you manage to slip into this conversation between otherwise intelligent people who happen to hold widely divergent views? BTW, what Comic book do you get your titles from? You know, for someone who apparently is afraid to use his/her real name you sure throw that word "coward" around rather freely...didn't your Mom ever tell you that name-calling is silly and childish? Between the name-calling and lumping all those with opposing views into your neat little categories of folks you think unworthy of respect you really are quite a nifty piece of work, dude (or dudette)...

Much was obvious to intelligent, mature, perceptive peolpe who watched George W. Bush well before January 20, let alone September 11, 2001. Of course, Lurker doesn't fit any of those descriptions. He LOVES to battle his domestic political rivals. Ask John McCain about South Carolina sometime. And, Paul, maybe his mother should have told him, "Son, always be a good boy, don't you ever play with guns." Fat lotta good it woulda done. But then, my mother voted for Nixon the first time (but not the second time), so mothers aren't infallible.