Really, nothing but comtempt? which part of "pay tribute to their courage and thank" shows contempt?

You look for the worst in everything...except in those who share your dogma. This is called xenophobia.

Biscuits,

He only came out with that because he's worried that his donations might dry up...he's trying to repair the fact that he had nothing to say of those who rescued him.

Trust me, if I were rescued from the clutches of terrorists, thanking the troops who rescued me woudl take top priority...but what can we expect of a group which considers our presence in Iraq at the request of the legitimate government of Iraq to be an occuption?

I think the point is to not arm and train men to do harm to others. Arm men with knowledge, patience, and tolerance. Violence will last only as long as violent people are around to commit violence. Don't be a violent person.
In all reality, it is those "rough, well-armed" men committing the dispicable acts.

Tray,

Do you realise what a massive insult you have offered to literally millions of people all at once? You are comparing both my grandfathers, my father, my uncle and myself (all of us, once upon a time, "rough, well-armed" men) to, say, people who strap a bomb on to an autistic kid and send him into a Baghdad marketplace...

Violence will, indeed, last as long as violent people are around - and unless you can cure everyone all at once of all violent impulses, any program based upon ending violence is a chimera.

God will, in the by and by, put an end to all this warring and murder...but until then, thank God that you have rough, well-armed men who will look after you.

C'mon, Mark, you know Tray is right. If WE put down OUR arms, then the rest of the world will follow suit. The Islamofascists will fade away, and everyone will be free to worship as they please, wear flowers in their hair, and toss the Frisbee in the park. Let's all get together for a group hug.

There are countries in the world that offer no American protections for Americans who choose to visit, for whatever reason. These hate-America groups who choose to ignore the warnings of danger should be given the following advice: Enter at your own risk; we are not responsible for your security. Should you be kidnapped and taken hostage, no extraordinary efforts will be attempted to secure your release. Should your rescue result under normal military or police operations, so be it. Otherwise, you're on your own.

LimpBiscuit, these ingrates blasted the coalition forces as soon as they got to a microphone following their rescue. They blamed the coalition "occupation" for the death of one of their members. I beg to differ; the coalition didn't send these kooks to Iraq.

And the MSM did its utmost to avoid using the word "rescue" when these kooks were free. So for one of their members to finally come out and thank his rescuers? Too little too late. This is the same as you and your kook friends saying "We support the troops but not the mission."

Biscuit-brain comes on here, for what again? Oh yeah, to tell us how wrong we are. I forgot. Better go check out his lame blog, so I can understand his lack of intellect...

"God will, in the by and by, put an end to all this warring and murder...but until then, thank God that you have rough, well-armed men who will look after you."

No basketball player is ever going to make every free throw he or she attempts, but does that mean they should stop practicing free throws?

Violence will always be around, but as human beings, and myself as a catholic, I believe it's up to us to do everything possible to limit it.

I don't think we did that by invading Iraq.

I posted this on the Rahman board yesterday, but maybe more appropriate here...Shipley and others...where does this article go wrong?

*******
I found this to be a good article on concisely summing up the Iraqi war.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18566827%255E25377,00.html

I would ask any left leaning folks that read these boards to review this article and help me by pointing out what I am missing here. To me, this article makes perfect sense. What am I missing? Thanks! ml

I have a question for you liberals: If Al "I invented the Internet" Gore had been elected President in 2000, what would have been the US response after 9/11?

Keep in mind that after the Islamofascists declared war against us, they committed acts of war against the US in 1993 (WTC), 1996 (Khobar Towers), 1998 (embassy bombings), and 2000 (USS Cole). In each instance, with Al Gore as Vice-President, our response was mostly law enforcement in nature. Very little military action was taken.

Would a hypothetical President Gore have declared war against terror and used whatever force necessary to defend our country? Would he have gone to Congress and gotten two authorizations to wage war against the terrorists and those countries who harbor terrorist and provide support?

Would a hypothetical President Gore demand that the Taliban turn over the leaders of al-Qaeda? Would he form a coalition to liberate 25,000,000 Afghans from the Taliban? Would he keep a coalition presence long enough to allow democracy to take hold in Afghanistan? Or would he just try to extradite OBL to the US to stand trial?

Would a hypothetical President Gore demand that Saddam live up to the conditions of the 1991 Cease-fire and the 17 UN Resolutions requiring him to destroy his WMD, associated program, and prohibited armaments? Would he have liberated 25,000,000 Iraqis? Would he have created the conditions for democracy to take hold in Iraq? Or would he have allowed Saddam to continue to thumb his nose at the UN Sanctions? Would he have allowed Saddam to continue to steal billions under the UN Oil-for-Food Programs and continue to purchase prohibited war materials? Would he have allowed Saddam and his sons to continue to operate the rape rooms, and the shredders where people were fed into them alive, and continue to fill up the mass graves by the ten's of thousands? Would he have lobbied for the lifting of sanctions, which would have resulted in Iraq resuming its WMD programs as the recently translated tapes and documents have disclosed?

Would a hypothetical President Gore have passed tax cuts to revive the US economy after the 9/11 attacks and the dot com bubble burst? The same tax cuts which have generated record tax revenues. Or, would have he raised taxes and further depressed the economy? We know for certain the he would have pushed strongly for passage of the Kyoto Treaty, which had been defeated in thee Senate by a vote of 95-0. Of course, the Kyoto Treaty would have a devastating effect on our economy, without any scientific proof that it would have any measurable affect on global warming and cooling patterns.

Do you honestly think we would be safer under a hypothetical President Gore than we are now? Do you think, based on our failure to act with conviction during the Clinton-Gore administration in 1993, 1996, 1998, and 2000, that terrorists would have launched a successful attack against the US with Gore in command?

I would like a honest answer. No Bush bashing. Just what you think the last five plus years would have been like under a hypothetical President Gore. I will allow you to disregard the fact that in recent months former Vice-President Gore has exhibited bizarre behaviour and may be mentally unbalanced. For arguement's sake, let's assume he hadn't gone crazy.

a10
Your fundamental question is really quite interesting: "What would things be like if Gore had won?". I think it is a bit frivolous to try to imagine Gore's decision making on all of Bush's agenda items, since they wouldn't be agenda items if Gore was President, but the fundamental question is thought provoking.

I considered writing a detailed answer to your question, but I think I have decided not to. You don't want Bushbashing in my reply (which I probably wouldn't have done anyway), but in your opening, you couldn't resist: Al "I invented the Internet" Gore.

I am inclined to think that while the question is a serious one,your predisposition towards Gore is so firm that you aren't capable of analyzing an opposing viewpoint with any sense of reason.

btw. . it should read Al "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" Gore, if you want to accurately quote Gore. You must be quoting Dick Armey?

http://www.sethf.com/gore/

a10
Your fundamental question is really quite interesting: "If Gore had been elected President in 2000, what would have been the US response after 9/11?
?". I think it is a bit frivolous to try to imagine Gore's decision making on all of Bush's agenda items, since they wouldn't be agenda items if Gore was President, but the fundamental question is thought provoking.

I considered writing a detailed answer to your question, but I think I have decided not to. You don't want Bushbashing in my reply (which I probably wouldn't have done anyway), but in your opening, you couldn't resist: Al "I invented the Internet" Gore.

I am inclined to think that while the question is a serious one,your predisposition towards Gore is so firm that you aren't capable of analyzing an opposing viewpoint with any sense of reason.

btw. . it should read Al "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" Gore, if you want to accurately quote Gore. I would debate the difference, but that would be way off topic!

As long as we are using quotes, lets use his exact words, ok?

http://www.sethf.com/gore/

minnesota, I will be happy to share with you what's missing to me in this piece.

He begins by taking the position that the middle east was unstable enough that something HAD to be done. I take issue with Mr Sheridan's "presumptuous" label for the statement:

"...that there was some stable, satisfactory status quo in the Middle East with which we could have persisted happily for the next 10 years" .

Mr. Sheridan has an Australian perspective, meaning I am not sure how finely tuned his take is on American politics. He may not be aware that when Bush took office Palestine and Israel weren't fighting, and Saddam really was in a box.

I am not sure Sheridan is aware that early in his first term, Bush did not engage the politics of the middle east. In my opinion, this, in part, led to the renewed fighting between Hamas and Israel, which persists today. Things were as stable in the middle east in September of 2001 as they had been at any other time in the last few decades.

Sheridan's topic is the Iraq war, so he has no cause to mention that about this same time, 2 nuclear powers (India and Pakistan) were fighting along their border, and Kashmir, in what looked to me to be a very unstable situation. Yet,our government seemed satisfied that there was no threat. Diplomacy would be all that would be needed to avert a nuclear crisis, which turned out to be true.

Nor would Sheridan have reason to mention the fact that about this time, North Korea begins to announce to the world that it is already creating a nuclear arsenal! Again, the government seemed to have a quick response. . . diplomacy, only.

They were not to be distracted from the "real threat" to the US and to world peace. This man is so dangerous, no one seriously thinks we can solve this problem with diplomacy, do they? The man who had been under sanctions for years. The man with no Air Force. The man with no WMD, and inspectors criss-crossing his country. We had seen this army before. Remember how fiercely they fought in the first Gulf War?

Saddam was so dangerous, in fact, that our government decided even the hunt for Bin Laden himself in Afghanistan has to be bumped down the priority list. The president never seemed concerned about the fact that in September of '01 he promised, in public, to bring Bin Laden to justice. Then, just months later, when asked about Osama's whereabouts, responds with:

"He's just--he's a person who's now been marginalized. I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him to be honest with you. I truly am not that concerned about him." -President Bush on Bin Laden, 3/13/2002

And if all of that wasn't enough, the rumors out of Iran are that THEY are seeking nuclear weapons. The president himself put them on the "evil" list. So, with two countries in various stages of arming themselves with nukes,threatening to blow us up, and our response is diplomacy. The country our government claims is the real threat is really only rumored to have them by Iraqi nationals hoping for regime change.

How ironic, that here we are 3 years later, threatening Iran with a brave but tired military. Wouldn't it be nice to be threatening Iran with a brave, fresh military who has been home since finishing off Afghanistan!

Sheridan asks: "what was the alternative?"

1.finish the war in Afghanistan.
2.catch Bin Laden
3.bring most of the soldiers home victorious
4.leave a few to keep an eye on Iran from Afghanistan.
5.allow weapons inspectors to continue working in Iraq
6.Reassure Israel that if attacked by Iraq, we will aid the defense, just as we did in Kuwait, but under no circumstances will the US invade a sovreign nation not having been provoked.
7.sit back and play defense with the best miliatry in the world, monitoring those who need it. Including China

Now,Mr President, you got bases in Afghanistan, putting pressure on Iran (a real threat), and your approval ratings are in the 80's. No one is screaming about the war, because there was such an obvious connection between the Taliban and Bin Laden.

Mr Sheridan states:

"Sanctions were unsustainable and were breaking down."

I would have to see source data to believe that statement.

"We were constantly told that sanctions cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. If that is true, then the war, in ending the necessity for sanctions, has brought huge humanitarian benefits."

"If that is true..." "IF" that is true? If you don't know, then you should just stop writing right there. It is irresponsible to further rumor like that as a journalist.

Sheridan: "Since the invasion, the Iraqis have voted three times, an utterly unique experience in their history which they have embraced with enthusiasm. Is it wrong that Iraqis vote?"

No. But if they vote for a Islamic Theocracy, are you really going to support their decision? Will we feel like we got a good deal on the 2400+ dead and the $250+ Billion we've already spent to get it? What if they harbor terrorists?

I take no joy in predicting:

Iraq will eventually go Theocracy.
They will eventually harbor terrorists.
we will eventually go back to sanctions.

So much for the huge humanitarian benefit.

my view, wrong war, wrong time. Finish what you start (Afghanistan). Seems obvious to me that more serious threats were quietly overlooked, while the administration fixated on invading Iraq. The action in Iraq has made us no safer from the likes of N. Korea and Iran. And no, me saying so does not help the enemy!

Thanks Dav...

I appreciate your response. I must say, however, that it seemed longwinded with talking points with little substance. Something many of the Republicans posting here have problems with.

Let's cut to the chase....when planes hit the skyscrapers in NY I turned to my wife and stated - this is bad - we will be dealing with this for the next 20 years, however, we have to deal with it...and not pass it on to our kids.

Iraq not only was a problem...but let's be very frank....it was very strategic to the overall mission of converting folks from the 13th century to this century. Saudi Arabia was getting increasingly unstable at the time - you look for the source data, but it is all there. If the Saudi Kingdom was to fall at the time, you would have a vacuum for Iraq to fill.

Iraq was sponsoring terrorism, providing $25k to each family that killed an Isreali through a homicide bomb. Further, Iran was aiding terrorists throughout the middle east.

By being in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US is poised to direct Iran in the appropriate direction.

No one from Saudi Arabia or Iran can stop the oil flow from the Persian Gulf. Like it or not...we are overdependent on oil and we need to assure that it flows - not to make Halliburten or Bush Oil buddies' rich, but rather to maintain global economic stability. Until we come up with alternative fuel sources....controlling oil flow is critically important. Iraq serves this purpose. Want to argue with me? Start by selling off your car tomorrow and walking to work.

Again, cease the talking points. We are at a very critical point in history. One that would have been devastating to our grandchildren had we sat back and did nothing. The Australian article clearly addresses why it is logical to be in Iraq - whether you are left or right. ml