KaskadskyjKozak

Your communist masters have trained you well - both philosophically (hatred of religion) and practically (means to justify your ends).

Well said.

CBS:

TS

More fodder for you all: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2203

BTW, has anyone else noticed that Arafat's face closely resembles a camel's ass? Just wondering...

Also, Sharon has recently ordered that Israeli settlers in the Gaza strip must abandon their settlements. That's two good developments for that conflict in one short week.

Go for it - have a circle-jerk with like-minded people. You'll never need to feel threatened - or have to think.

Yes.

That is *your* appraisal, which I can respect, but disagree with. Can I assume that you would feel *some* war is worth fighting for, even though war is inherently an "abomination"?

<irony> You must be a religious fanatical nut from a red state! </irony>

I'm not arguing the question of whether we should have gone to war in Iraq or not (did I ever on this forum?). What I'd like to see is to reduce the insurgency to a level where we can, in good faith, hand over power to the Iraqis, and withdraw most of our troops over the next year (like 75%).

I don't think any of our wars in the past 70 years has gone "well"; why should this one be any different?

What do you consider worth fighting for? Anything? All the abominations of war would accompany the defense of your own homeland. Would that be a battle to be fought? Is it moral to allow for millions to die, while you stand on the sidelines in your purist moral rectitude? If a man pulls an assualt rifle and aims it at a crowd, do you have a right to kill him? Can you knowlingly kill 100,000 to save 1,000,000? Not my point, Sir. I merely assert that our troops are doing their damned best to minimize loss of innocent life. If we really had no concern for innocent civilians we could conduct this war on insurgency / occupation in much more brutal ways.

We have not been invaded since the war of 1812. All our subsequent wars have been "elective". All have cost lives on both sides. All have been controversial.

I think the Iraqi occupation is being painted as much worse than it is by all the political opponents of Bush. Every problem is purposely exaggerated, the mission constantly questioned. I think that if Kerry were president, 2/3 of the negative news would evaporate immediately without a single thing actually changing in Iraq. But, do things seem bad in general? That's been the case ever since OBL grabbed our attention.

Whatever "AlpinFox". I'm not wasting any more time on a bigotted idiot like yourself.

One could argue that Normandy was an elective invasion since Stalingrad was actually the turning point of the war, and the Russians would have defeated Hitler without our help. We could have stuck to our efforts in the Pacific Theater, and provided financial assistance to Stalin instead.

I think you're wrong about "considering contradictory evidence". I do agree that he sticks to his decisions, but prefer that to the waffling and political maneuvering that so often drives our leaders' decisions - often to the detriment of everyone.

And yet credit for these efforts is few and far between. Rather, the rhetoric is replete with hyperbole claiming the exact *opposite*.

The "Patriot" Act reduced civil liberty. Bush's administration has accelerated the rape of the environment and the pollution of the air, water, and land. He has destroyed our credibility around the globe as a progressive leader on the environment and international justice (Kyoto, ICC, etc) and has reinforced our image as an international bully which is why the US is despised by many people around the world. He has done nothing to make this country or this planet a better place to live. He has sent innocent Americans off to kill innocent Iraqis all the while sitting behind a desk and making millions of dollars for his corporate cronies. He is a fucking criminal and I hope he rots in hell. Soon. p.s. Did any of you actually go read that forum I posted the link to? Yeah, right, his religious convictions were the basis for all the stuff you rant about.

OK, but has it been overturned in 4 years? Ashcroft is toast now, and his successor has yet to be approved. And the Supreme Court can choose to ignore any case that it does not wish to address. I don't think the law will be overturned. We'll see...

1) The reality of war will always be death and destruction. If the blogger is real, then I am not surprised that things are as bad as she states, but that is always the cost of war - always. Some wars must be fought nevertheless. 2) If you compare how we execute wars today to what we did in the past, we have made huge improvements.

Yes, but would the political opposition in this country be wringing their hands about the abuses of the american military, making like so unpleasant for the "average German".

It has never been legal and is not a right that will be taken away from you. No previous president's court appointments legalized it, so I think it is a red herring (has nothing to do with Bush).