Since This Is The New Philosophy Section...

[DonkSlayer 1]

I would argue that a nation's citizens are ultimately responsible, via either endorsement or acceptance, for their leadership. Thus, if there is collateral damage (not systematic genocide or anything of the like) to civilians/civilian targets during wars/military strife, those citizens have not somehow been "wronged", nor is the military who fired the shots that resulted in the collateral damage guilty of a crime in any way. For instance:An Iraqi lives in Baghdad. Through the news media and leaflets dropped by the US, it is apparent that within a certain time frame, the US will likely go to war with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. The Iraqi is in a tough spot, because if he attempts to help overthrow Saddam, he may be killed. However, due to his particular job in a military industry and the proximity of his home to government buildings in Baghdad, he and/or his family may be harmed or killed by American bombs as well if the war does happen. So, the Iraqi eventually does nothing either way, and his children are killed as they walk out the door to school one morning by shrapnel from a missile impact at a nearby Republican Army office. Who is responsible, or ultimately "guilty" in those children's deaths? Is Anyone?

[tryptout 0]

DS - I agree whoeheartedly with your first statement. I think that's why protests and other active dissent - ie that leading up to the Iraq invasion - is legitimate expression. The people carrying signs that said "Not In Our Name" agree with you. When I was driving here in Chicago - to the poker room of all things - it was those signs that made me realize what's at stake - which is just the point you make - and pull over to join the march down Lakeshore Drive. The Iraqi's case is obviously more complicated, living in conditions of dictatorship. The sense in which he is responsible for his leadership is much more difficult to fathom.

[MrDaMan 0]

Who is responsible, or ultimately "guilty" in those children's deaths? Is Anyone?

War sucks no doubt about it and no one knows more than the soldier putting his/her life on the line and see first hand the scenario you've described. However sometimes war is a necessity. How many will live because a war was waged in which collateral damage killed innocents?The answer to your question may not always lead to a sigular "who", though in Iraq's case much blame can be laid at the feet of Saddam Hussien. More so the blame lies in the nature of humanity itself. The deaths of children, of innocents is unfortunate in war and one of the reasons we try to avoid going to war. Philosophically if you could go back and assasinate Hitler before WW2, could WW2 and the deaths of 6 million Jews among all of the other deaths been avoided?Philosophically how many lives are being saved by taking out Hussiens regime and promoting democracy, liberty and and a respect for human rights in the region? Guilty? Ask an old hippy if he/she feels guilty for the millions who died in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos after the US left southeast Asia. Check the facts and confront the old hippys who protest war, you'll find that the communists and tin pot dictators murdered far more in thier colsolodation of power than the US/North/South Vietnamese did in the whole several years of war in which the US was involved. If the leftists win the ideological battle and the US leaves Iraq and Afghanistan to civil war and fascist Islamic revolutionaries THEN those who have died so far will have been in vain. State sponsored terror will become MORE prevelent not less and WW3 will have to be fought in a manner much nastier and deadlier than mankind has ever known. If the leftists win the question is; Will you feel guilty when hundreds of thousands die in the name of "peace" and WW3 becomes inevitable with united Islamic fascist governments armed with nukes and suicide fanatics willing to carry them across borders and detonate them in shopping malls?Heck yeah war sucks, hide your head in the sand ... some ones gonna drill ya from behind.

[DonkSlayer 1]

[tryptout 0]

The answer to your question may not always lead to a sigular "who", though in Iraq's case much blame can be laid at the feet of Saddam Hussien. More so the blame lies in the nature of humanity itself. The deaths of children, of innocents is unfortunate in war and one of the reasons we try to avoid going to war. Philosophically if you could go back and assasinate Hitler before WW2, could WW2 and the deaths of 6 million Jews among all of the other deaths been avoided?Philosophically how many lives are being saved by taking out Hussiens regime and promoting democracy, liberty and and a respect for human rights in the region? Guilty? Ask an old hippy if he/she feels guilty for the millions who died in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos after the US left southeast Asia. Check the facts and confront the old hippys who protest war, you'll find that the communists and tin pot dictators murdered far more in thier colsolodation of power than the US/North/South Vietnamese did in the whole several years of war in which the US was involved. If the leftists win the ideological battle and the US leaves Iraq and Afghanistan to civil war and fascist Islamic revolutionaries THEN those who have died so far will have been in vain. State sponsored terror will become MORE prevelent not less and WW3 will have to be fought in a manner much nastier and deadlier than mankind has ever known. If the leftists win the question is; Will you feel guilty when hundreds of thousands die in the name of "peace" and WW3 becomes inevitable with united Islamic fascist governments armed with nukes and suicide fanatics willing to carry them across borders and detonate them in shopping malls?Heck yeah war sucks, hide your head in the sand ... some ones gonna drill ya from behind.

What a torturously twisted swerve from the original topic to drop a load of undigested ideology on a sincere question."The answer to your question may not always lead to a sigular "who"....blame can be laid at the feet of Saddam Hussien. More so the blame lies in the nature of humanity itself."Odd how this answer totally disregards the OP's clear question about the responsibility of citizens (collectively and individually) in relation to the actions of their government. "The deaths of children, of innocents is unfortunate in war and one of the reasons we try to avoid going to war."Wow, that's deep. "Philosophically if you could go back and assasinate Hitler before WW2, could WW2 and the deaths of 6 million Jews among all of the other deaths been avoided?"Right. Let's play some more fantasy games with history. Oh wait, you do in your diatribe on Vietnam. But, it might be worth asking, what's this got to do with anything? It just doesn't address the question in the slightest. If you had offered questions about the collective culpability of the German people - as a whole, individually, or broken out into groups - in enabling Hitler's rise to power; if you'd seriously asked about how to apportion responsibility to the citizens of other nations who enabled the rise of National Socialism, that would at least signify that you're responding to the question instead of saying whatever comes to mind. "Philosophically how many lives are being saved by taking out Hussiens regime and promoting democracy, liberty and and a respect for human rights in the region?"Well, you ask your question in what you call a philosophical mode. It might be better designated fantasy of ideology mode. These lofty 'philosophical' goals are far far from realization. They are more likely even harder to attain as a result of the U.S. intervention. Furthermore, they aren't even the goals that the administration used to garner support for the war. Of course, there's a lot more to say about this in the service of dismantling your ideological distortions. But, since what you say barely touches on the topic anyways, it's better left aside. "Guilty? Ask an old hippy if he/she feels guilty for the millions who died in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos after the US left southeast Asia. Check the facts and confront the old hippys who protest war, you'll find that the communists and tin pot dictators murdered far more in thier colsolodation of power than the US/North/South Vietnamese did in the whole several years of war in which the US was involved."This barely deserves response; even though this little slice of history comes closest to addressing the topic, it goes so far in revealing your commitment to ideological distortion and selective memory that it would seem to basically make further discussion pointless. It would be much more fruitful for you to just go read a history book. "If the leftists win the ideological battle and the US leaves Iraq and Afghanistan to civil war and fascist Islamic revolutionaries THEN those who have died so far will have been in vain. State sponsored terror will become MORE prevelent not less and WW3 will have to be fought in a manner much nastier and deadlier than mankind has ever known. If the leftists win the question is; Will you feel guilty when hundreds of thousands die in the name of "peace" and WW3 becomes inevitable with united Islamic fascist governments armed with nukes and suicide fanatics willing to carry them across borders and detonate them in shopping malls?Heck yeah war sucks, hide your head in the sand ... some ones gonna drill ya from behind."More of the same: Doesn't address the topic, Go read a book, etc etc etc.

[MrDaMan 0]

What a torturously twisted swerve from the original topic to drop a load of undigested ideology on a sincere question.So “you” say.Odd how this answer totally disregards the OP's clear question about the responsibility of citizens (collectively and individually) in relation to the actions of their government.The clear question was; Who is responsible, or ultimately "guilty" in those children's deaths? Is Anyone? He asserted his opinion that the collective could be responsible but that wasn’t his question. His post overall was philosophical I don’t doubt the sincerity. As far as the collective is concerned I addressed that generally as the “nature of humanity”. Right. Let's play some more fantasy games with history. Oh wait, you do in your diatribe on Vietnam. But, it might be worth asking, what's this got to do with anything? It just doesn't address the question in the slightest. If you had offered questions about the collective culpability of the German people - as a whole, individually, or broken out into groups - in enabling Hitler's rise to power; if you'd seriously asked about how to apportion responsibility to the citizens of other nations who enabled the rise of National Socialism, that would at least signify that you're responding to the question instead of saying whatever comes to mind.Talk about torturous logic! His question again was philosophical and in my mind the crux of the question is dependant on whether the war in Iraq is just, perhaps in his mind too. WW2 was not a fantasy and to philosophically address a what if scenario is legitimate. Vietnam is relevant since it is true that the war protesters were WRONG then and should feel guilty for the approximately 3 million deaths that occurred after the U.S. left Southeast Asia. But you can’t blame only the old hippies thought they do share a bulk of the blame, the quixotic nature of humanity, good and evil, the cold war, democratic liberty vs. statist communism are all not without fault. Had the U.S. stayed the course in Vietnam the cold war may very well have ended sooner with less deaths of innocents.Culpability in the macro sense of individuals, groups and nations in general that make up the geopolitical landscape is very real. His original question shows conscience and morality, which is to his good credit as a human being and an American. I salute that questioning it is part of the American culture that makes me proud. Well, you ask your question in what you call a philosophical mode. It might be better designated fantasy of ideology mode. These lofty 'philosophical' goals are far far from realization. They are more likely even harder to attain as a result of the U.S. intervention. Furthermore, they aren't even the goals that the administration used to garner support for the war. Of course, there's a lot more to say about this in the service of dismantling your ideological distortions. But, since what you say barely touches on the topic anyways, it's better left aside.Indeed? Fantasy like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, we can all be blinded by that which we wish not to see, what you call ideological distortions are backed by reason and logic on my part. Sidestep the questions or conclusions if you don’t like them, as you will. You discard so easily the philosophy of liberty and a respect for human rights. Curious. This barely deserves response; even though this little slice of history comes closest to addressing the topic, it goes so far in revealing your commitment to ideological distortion and selective memory that it would seem to basically make further discussion pointless. It would be much more fruitful for you to just go read a history book.LOL …. I’ll not list my library for you but I assure you I am well read and have experienced 47 years of life, some of it protesting against the Vietnam War in my youth. I have lived and thought these questions through, studied and debated the issue many times. I came to the conclusion long ago that I share part of the collective guilt for 58 thousand Americans, 600 thousand Vietnamese (north and south) and for approximately 3 million Cambodian, Vietnamese and Laotians who died as a result of the U.S. decision to leave South East Asia to communists and tin pot dictators. That’s no fantasy, that’s no “ideological distortion” that is what happened. If you don’t believe it … uh … hit the books yourself. More of the same: Doesn't address the topic, Go read a book, etc etc etc.The topic has been addressed, if DonkSlayer wants clarity all he has to do is ask. What’s your point besides attack the messenger? Would you like to discuss whether the Iraq War is just or not? Or perhaps use this opportunity to bash president Bush and republicans? You accuse me of fitting my ideology into a neat little fantasy box, perhaps instead of a book a mirror would be more suited to your needs. He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak. —Michel de Montaigne

[tryptout 0]

DM - consider OP's statement, for a little exercise in reading comprehension:"I would argue that a nation's citizens are ultimately responsible, via either endorsement or acceptance, for their leadership." This is the thesis that he's proposed. This is the issue. I addressed it in my reply. Notice how OP didn't ask primarily about the elective invasion of Iraq, but used that as an example to get at the basic issue. You chose to highlight Iraq for your own reasons, which have been transparent from the start. The notion that citizens are ultimately responsible for their leadership lies at the heart of democratic life. It's almost a truism, but a provocative one nonetheless. It is something that should strike us with urgency now and again. The struggle to conceive of democratic responsibility gets very little benefit from abstract appeals to vague principles, to the nature of things, nature of humanity, etc.How does one get at the notion of democratic responsibility? What does it mean to take that responsibility on board? It means, for one, that citizens have a duty to express their will through legitimate channels. It also means that protests and other forms of dissent outside of normal political channels are an appropriate medium for voicing political will when the government fails to execute the will of the people, in spite of legitimate attempts by the people to make their will explicit. This is just a provisional way of addressing the question of this responsibility, one which suggests a framework whereby political structures link integrally to 'ways of life' (in other words, what are the ethical, ontological, practical, structural etc. assumptions, beliefs, practices that enable or constrain this kind of political participation?). The question, to be sure, should be addressed before one goes off half-cocked into all manner of cases, particularly thorny and controversial ones. Even in the close analysis of cases, the appeal to vague principles, the nature of things, the wickedness of evil men, etc. adds little to the discussion. What would the analysis of examples need to include, then? Well, I suppose it would need to consider the will of the people in any given case, and how it has been expressed or distorted. It would need to consider the actions and words of leadership; this should include tough questions about intention and intangibles like quality of leadership. The two major aspects - will of the people and actions/words of the leadership should be taken up in the larger political, global, and moral context. This requires a sober analysis of these realities and an open willing discussion of the moral/ethical/principled components. This is a sketch for how parties might profitably discuss democratic responsibility, the subject of this thread. Or one could just fill it with unrelated ramblings peppered with quotes from the quote book.

[mtdesmoines 3]

I would argue that a nation's citizens are ultimately responsible, via either endorsement or acceptance, for their leadership. Thus, if there is collateral damage (not systematic genocide or anything of the like) to civilians/civilian targets during wars/military strife, those citizens have not somehow been "wronged", nor is the military who fired the shots that resulted in the collateral damage guilty of a crime in any way. For instance:An Iraqi lives in Baghdad. Through the news media and leaflets dropped by the US, it is apparent that within a certain time frame, the US will likely go to war with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. The Iraqi is in a tough spot, because if he attempts to help overthrow Saddam, he may be killed. However, due to his particular job in a military industry and the proximity of his home to government buildings in Baghdad, he and/or his family may be harmed or killed by American bombs as well if the war does happen. So, the Iraqi eventually does nothing either way, and his children are killed as they walk out the door to school one morning by shrapnel from a missile impact at a nearby Republican Army office. Who is responsible, or ultimately "guilty" in those children's deaths? Is Anyone?

I so totally get your point, man. I mean, here's another scenario. Suppose you and the kids are getting on a plane to go to Disneyland, and the next thing you know, some lunatic bastards are flying the ****ing plane right into a building! Who is responsible, or ultimately "guilty" in those children's deaths? Is Anyone?

[MrDaMan 0]

"I would argue that a nation's citizens are ultimately responsible, via either endorsement or acceptance, for their leadership." This is the thesis that he's proposed. This is the issue. I addressed it in my reply. Notice how OP didn't ask primarily about the elective invasion of Iraq, but used that as an example to get at the basic issue. You chose to highlight Iraq for your own reasons, which have been transparent from the start.The question is philosophical and more expansive than black and white and in my humble opinion that includes the premise of the justness of the war. One cannot cherry pick out of context a question to eliminate answers one doesn’t want to hear. At least not in a free society.How does one get at the notion of democratic responsibility? What does it mean to take that responsibility on board? It means, for one, that citizens have a duty to express their will through legitimate channels. It also means that protests and other forms of dissent outside of normal political channels are an appropriate medium for voicing political will when the government fails to execute the will of the people, in spite of legitimate attempts by the people to make their will explicit.And if you’re wrong? The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions; I don’t decry the right to protest, or petition for grievances. This is an opinion board, the OP’s sincerity moved me to express my opinion, in a free world this too is one of the ways in this brave new e-world to take on responsibility and discuss issues. This is just a provisional way of addressing the question of this responsibility, one which suggests a framework whereby political structures link integrally to 'ways of life' (in other words, what are the ethical, ontological, practical, structural etc. assumptions, beliefs, practices that enable or constrain this kind of political participation?). The question, to be sure, should be addressed before one goes off half-cocked into all manner of cases, particularly thorny and controversial ones.Again I don’t believe you can answer the OP’s question out of context. I addressed it generally and philosophically making points, which I thought, should be considered. Even in the close analysis of cases, the appeal to vague principles, the nature of things, the wickedness of evil men, etc. adds little to the discussion. What would the analysis of examples need to include, then? Well, I suppose it would need to consider the will of the people in any given case, and how it has been expressed or distorted. It would need to consider the actions and words of leadership; this should include tough questions about intention and intangibles like quality of leadership. The two major aspects - will of the people and actions/words of the leadership should be taken up in the larger political, global, and moral context. This requires a sober analysis of these realities and an open willing discussion of the moral/ethical/principled components.Which I generally expressed in my opinion.This is a sketch for how parties might profitably discuss democratic responsibility, the subject of this thread. Or one could just fill it with unrelated ramblings peppered with quotes from the quote book.If it wasn’t for this damn forest I’m sure you could find a tree somewhere. When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit. —Ayn Rand

[DonkSlayer 1]

I so totally get your point, man. I mean, here's another scenario. Suppose you and the kids are getting on a plane to go to Disneyland, and the next thing you know, some lunatic bastards are flying the ****ing plane right into a building! Who is responsible, or ultimately "guilty" in those children's deaths? Is Anyone?

MtDesMoines..While I appreciate your tongue-in-cheekiness, I consider terrorist acts to be different than conflicts between nations.

[SoCooLBob 0]

Don't know what took me so long to respond to this thread, except that for some reason, perhaps, I found it more difficult to read a thread on Iraq/Iran in a Poker Forum .... "I would argue that a nation's citizens are ultimately responsible, via either endorsement or acceptance, for their leadership." AMEN!I would prefer we begin developing the habit of ... something else besides "arguing."It may not make any sense to anyone, but lately, when I read various Bulletin Boards it's only too apparent that folks are doing something else besidesproblem solving, treating each other well, communicating in conversational form, etc. REGARDLESS OF THE SUBJECT MATTER. Trash talking, unending criticism's etc. may have their place in, say, basketball ... but ... not in meaningful conversation between people who have thought of and decided to care more about everyone, including THE OTHER GUY.Guess, I shouldn't be surprised. What do we really have for role models?http://www.socool.com/news/family.htmlIt's DEFINITELY NOT like this is ALL NEW.For me, my latest thoughts on Iraq / Iran include:It's totally unacceptable to me that we could have our men and women, shooting and dying and having limbs blown off, without a GOOD PLAN and some form of agreement about the what's why's and wherefores. THIS IS WAY MORE IMPORTANT than a WHOLE LOT OF OTHER STUFF.My personal belief includes the notion that "if people would" then we wouldn't have these problems. If ALL the people involved simply set the goal that blowing each other up was unacceptable, they would eventually come up withother solutions to their problems. People on both sides apparently don't agree.I tend to think that it is a "religious" issue and has such profound negative impact because PEOPLE believe "their higher power" doesn't want to solve this war. For Christians and Jews, isn't this how it's supposed to end?Without a resolution? What about for Muslim's? Are all three worshipping the same God? Are their problems merely exagerrated "sibling rivalries?"I'm extremely concerned when I read the stated goals of those who apparently develop a LOT OF ENERGY around the idea they're going to blow Israel off the face of the earth.Seems their stated goals are consistent?Seems inconsistent with the greater good, everyone's good, doing good things for self and others, BUT ... how do people's minds change?I'm concerned and have stated quite frequently, I don't believe Mr. Bush and his religious friends are reading the book they claim.How do you "meditate" on the Word ... including the New Testament ... and come out a better "Warrior?" How do you read and believe in that book and come out as The War President? How do you profess Christianity and continue to support War, without ANYWHERE NEAR the dramatic evidence thatSomebody is trying to create PEACE?My conclusions, to date, unless you have a better suggestion is, You Don'tI'm particularly "upset" with the things obviously left out.My health insurance, just FOUR YEARS, has gone up from $220 / month to $780 per month, for lesser coverage. It's now HIGHER THAN MY RENT, and I live in the ABSOLUTELY lowest rent accomodations you can find in this city. It would appear, that I'm being encouraged to STOP carrying HEALTH INSURANCE and be covered by the STATE. I thought "we" were against that idea?I think it's because of things we leave out. We obviously didn't deal with the health expense issue ... and I guess, neither did I?ONE EXPERIENCE that may relate.I remember watching KQED, our local PBS Channel, on a night many, many years ago, when John Kenneth Galbraith moderated a special panel.There were three guests from the Soviet Union A Military PersonAn Educater PersonAn Administrator PersonThey came to San Francisco to appear on television. The first time in history that ANYONE from the Soviet Union ever appeared on US TV.The treatment they received was, in my opinion, abominable.Panel member after panel member just couldn't resist bringing up this example of Soviet atrocities or that. Didn't you kill X amount of people? Didn't you? etc? Problem was, because of the importance of this FIRST EVER communication, they had all agree on their mission and their goal.THEY ONLY CAME FOR ONE PURPOSETo communicate to US citizens ONE FACTThe Soviet Union, according to them, had NO DESIRE to BLOW US UP.That was it.Panel member after Panel Member ... attack .. attack.The Educator handled it pretty good, although a bit bristled.The Administrator handled it well, although the same.The Military guy had a really tough time. Seems he wanted to "defend himself."Yeah, but. NO, but. Yeah, but look at what YOU GUYS DID!You did this in that place, You did that in this place, etc. etc.Then, after the panel members got their fill of throwing dirt, they openedup the conversation to the studio audience. Oh My God!It was absurd. It was rude. It was downright disgusting ... to me.Obviously, not to some others.Why do we do stuff like that?I don't know, for sure, and frankly, given my chosen philosophies, I don't totally care, BECAUSE The solution to EVERY PROBLEM lies somewhere in a POSITIVE BRAIN... and in agreement among enemies and/or friends.Do we want it?Who is speaking up for it?HELLO?

[SoCooLBob 0]

A Major Problem With Our Current SituationIn Iraq ...In the middle east ...Fill in the blanks ...Would have to be the results of a recent poll.http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020930/Do you think a better understanding of their religious bond might make Jews, Muslims and Christians less prone to conflict?4.2 Percent Yes95.8 Percent No

[DonkSlayer 1]

A Major Problem With Our Current SituationIn Iraq ...In the middle east ...Fill in the blanks ...Would have to be the results of a recent poll.http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020930/Do you think a better understanding of their religious bond might make Jews, Muslims and Christians less prone to conflict?4.2 Percent Yes95.8 Percent No

I have never in my life seen a poll that had a 100% even breakup like that.

[Spirit_of_the_west 0]

What a torturously twisted swerve from the original topic to drop a load of undigested ideology on a sincere question."The answer to your question may not always lead to a sigular "who"....blame can be laid at the feet of Saddam Hussien. More so the blame lies in the nature of humanity itself."Odd how this answer totally disregards the OP's clear question about the responsibility of citizens (collectively and individually) in relation to the actions of their government. "The deaths of children, of innocents is unfortunate in war and one of the reasons we try to avoid going to war."Wow, that's deep. "Philosophically if you could go back and assasinate Hitler before WW2, could WW2 and the deaths of 6 million Jews among all of the other deaths been avoided?"Right. Let's play some more fantasy games with history. Oh wait, you do in your diatribe on Vietnam. But, it might be worth asking, what's this got to do with anything? It just doesn't address the question in the slightest. If you had offered questions about the collective culpability of the German people - as a whole, individually, or broken out into groups - in enabling Hitler's rise to power; if you'd seriously asked about how to apportion responsibility to the citizens of other nations who enabled the rise of National Socialism, that would at least signify that you're responding to the question instead of saying whatever comes to mind. "Philosophically how many lives are being saved by taking out Hussiens regime and promoting democracy, liberty and and a respect for human rights in the region?"Well, you ask your question in what you call a philosophical mode. It might be better designated fantasy of ideology mode. These lofty 'philosophical' goals are far far from realization. They are more likely even harder to attain as a result of the U.S. intervention. Furthermore, they aren't even the goals that the administration used to garner support for the war. Of course, there's a lot more to say about this in the service of dismantling your ideological distortions. But, since what you say barely touches on the topic anyways, it's better left aside. "Guilty? Ask an old hippy if he/she feels guilty for the millions who died in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos after the US left southeast Asia. Check the facts and confront the old hippys who protest war, you'll find that the communists and tin pot dictators murdered far more in thier colsolodation of power than the US/North/South Vietnamese did in the whole several years of war in which the US was involved."This barely deserves response; even though this little slice of history comes closest to addressing the topic, it goes so far in revealing your commitment to ideological distortion and selective memory that it would seem to basically make further discussion pointless. It would be much more fruitful for you to just go read a history book. "If the leftists win the ideological battle and the US leaves Iraq and Afghanistan to civil war and fascist Islamic revolutionaries THEN those who have died so far will have been in vain. State sponsored terror will become MORE prevelent not less and WW3 will have to be fought in a manner much nastier and deadlier than mankind has ever known. If the leftists win the question is; Will you feel guilty when hundreds of thousands die in the name of "peace" and WW3 becomes inevitable with united Islamic fascist governments armed with nukes and suicide fanatics willing to carry them across borders and detonate them in shopping malls?Heck yeah war sucks, hide your head in the sand ... some ones gonna drill ya from behind."More of the same: Doesn't address the topic, Go read a book, etc etc etc.

If you're going to bring up the spectre of WWII then you should seriously look at the resistence Winston Churchill had to deal with when he lobbied Parliment to put an end to Hitler's tyranny. Instead the leftists went with Neville Chamberlains plan AKA "Peace in our time" of appeasing Hitler and ignoring his reunification of Austria and the Czechoslovakia.Sadam, Hitler, and others are the cancer of the world - You either cut the lesion off now or or let it grow. Seems many of us would choose to spare the pain of the knife regardless of the prognosis. War is a horrible - brutal thing - but it's the one thing that gives diplomacy teeth. If the world views America as having no stomach for war, our diplomatic leverage is nil. If you doubt this, look at Iran during the Carter Admin and During the Reagan Admin - is it a cooincidence the hoistages were released literally while Ronnie was being sworn in.Do you really think Ahmadinejad would be playing these nuclear brinksmanship games if he thought the US had the stomach to move into Iran?

[Steppin Razor 0]

You can't just up and post something political. You have to wait 'til it's peripherally mentioned in the blog.

[DonkSlayer 1]

You can't just up and post something political. You have to wait 'til it's peripherally mentioned in the blog.

I do whatta want.Anybody see the anti-Israeli commercials and TV shows that Glenn Beck was airing on his CNN Headline show last night? Just sick.

[ReadNCoach 0]

Since this thread is here, I would like to add to it."I would argue that a nation's citizens are ultimately responsible, via either endorsement or acceptance, for their leadership." Yes, I agree, and I am happy our citizens have put their votes to changing Washington's attitude.I would like to focus attention on the bigger picture... What do you want, Peace or War?? Silly question, right? Well, look at the political deception, the bluff, the sleight of hand. Look at the campaign contributions. (George Bush declared "War on Terrorism" before he was even inaugurated. It was his #1 agenda. I cringed when I heard him say that on one December day. I could feel in the pit of my stomache.... something bad was going to happen... sure enough we were attacked...9/11.)If you want peace, vote for the candidate that accepts contributions from businesses promoting peace and well-being. If you want war, then vote for candidates that accept money from war-related industries and business that otherwise (polictically) profit from a war victory. Peace is achieved by choice, by design. Do not fall for the bluff! If the bluff were true, we'd be sending soldiers to Africa where an enormous genocide exists. This war is all about money, oil, and political advantage.What do you want... Peace or War?

[nutzbuster 7]

Since this thread is here, I would like to add to it."I would argue that a nation's citizens are ultimately responsible, via either endorsement or acceptance, for their leadership." Yes, I agree, and I am happy our citizens have put their votes to changing Washington's attitude.I would like to focus attention on the bigger picture... What do you want, Peace or War?? Silly question, right? Well, look at the political deception, the bluff, the sleight of hand. Look at the campaign contributions. (George Bush declared "War on Terrorism" before he was even inaugurated. It was his #1 agenda. I cringed when I heard him say that on one December day. I could feel in the pit of my stomache.... something bad was going to happen... sure enough we were attacked...9/11.)If you want peace, vote for the candidate that accepts contributions from businesses promoting peace and well-being. If you want war, then vote for candidates that accept money from war-related industries and business that otherwise (polictically) profit from a war victory. Peace is achieved by choice, by design. Do not fall for the bluff! If the bluff were true, we'd be sending soldiers to Africa where an enormous genocide exists. This war is all about money, oil, and political advantage.What do you want... Peace or War?

How soon we forget.The vote to go to war was unanimous on both sides of the aisle.Everyone is Washington has dirt in their pockets.

[Balloon guy 158]

Since this thread is here, I would like to add to it."I would argue that a nation's citizens are ultimately responsible, via either endorsement or acceptance, for their leadership." Yes, I agree, and I am happy our citizens have put their votes to changing Washington's attitude.I would like to focus attention on the bigger picture... What do you want, Peace or War?? Silly question, right? Well, look at the political deception, the bluff, the sleight of hand. Look at the campaign contributions. (George Bush declared "War on Terrorism" before he was even inaugurated. It was his #1 agenda. I cringed when I heard him say that on one December day. I could feel in the pit of my stomache.... something bad was going to happen... sure enough we were attacked...9/11.)If you want peace, vote for the candidate that accepts contributions from businesses promoting peace and well-being. If you want war, then vote for candidates that accept money from war-related industries and business that otherwise (polictically) profit from a war victory. Peace is achieved by choice, by design. Do not fall for the bluff! If the bluff were true, we'd be sending soldiers to Africa where an enormous genocide exists. This war is all about money, oil, and political advantage.What do you want... Peace or War?

War; better music, from both sides

[Muck, You Suckers! 0]

Being that I am a Gulf War vet, I can tell you that I have no contempt toward the people of that region. Most are poor, undereducated, underfed, and fueled by propaganda of mostly radcal dictated leadership. What you people didn't see on CNN was the Saudis throwing rocks and bottles at us before we ever crossed into Iraq. The clerics teach some of them from an early age to hate the U.S. Still, It wasn't all of them. As far as children dying. That's a nightmare. Children are children and babies are babies no matter where they are and they are the innocent. We were drilled over and over about being careful not to harm children or innocents by accident. That is a #1 priority. And I am sure no other military that ever existed on this earth that went into combat was as caring and careful. In spite of what some of you may think, a U.S. soldiers thoughts during combat is not about killing. It's about survival and the survival of your friends. Unfortunately, war is where you have to kill others before they kill you. People die. Is it for oil? Yes. Is it for democracy? Not the kind we know, it never could be the same due to their religion and way of life.

[coesillian 0]

Who droped the bombs>>>Rumsfeild/Bush/Cheney, I blame them. You can't blame the Iraqi ppl for being oppressed, thats like saying the hollocaust is because of the Jews. Iraqui ppl didn't akk for help, nobody asked the US for help, the UN was against you, nobody asked for this.

[nutzbuster 7]

Bawahhaaaaa!!!Pretty stupid/funny..........http://www.michaelhodges.com/missing.html

[Balloon guy 158]

Bawahhaaaaa!!!Pretty stupid/funny..........http://www.michaelhodges.com/missing.html

Good one

[Ict2caneff 0]

I would guess that the OP wants us to say that Pres. Bush is responsible for the war and the death of innocent women and children in Iraq. Weren't innocent women and children along with innocent men getting killed in Iraq long before we went to war? Didn't Sadam have tourture and rape rooms and weren't millons of bodies found in mass graves? I am amazed at how simple minded people want to take complex issues and reduce them down to BLAME BUSH! Let's not forget that the Jihad against America was proclaimed during Clinton's Presidency. The Muslims, along with their hatred of Bush, hated Clinton. Let's also not forget that the PLO was founded because it sounded better and was more acceptable to say they wanted to liberate their people instead of saying they wanted to kill the Jews. I am a mother of a solider that has endured two years of living hell while her son was in Iraq. I am torn about the situation, however, I do know that what he has done has served to liberate the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator that did want to KILL US AMERICANS, not to mention what he had done to the people of his own country. Do you not remember how he gased the Kurds ala Hitler style? Let's also remember that Congress voted to go to war. Let's also remember that the WORLD was in AGREEMENT that Sudam had WMD. Remember, when the Iraq War started we were supposed to be able to send the 4th ID down from the North via Turkey but they pulled out at the last minute. Guess what, those WMD's fled the country through the north. Let's also not forget that our soliders would have completed their mission by now if this country had pulled together against a common enemy that WANTS US DEAD instead of being petty partisans that only cared to make Bush look bad. Everytime Cindy Sheehan disrespects her son's memory she puts my son in harms way. You don't think the enemy draws strenght from the mud throwing and knowing that they can devide us from within. Forgive my misspelled words and rants. I am a mother torn between the love of her son and love of this country. I want him home more then anything and I want his daughter to grow up free of the fear of another 9/11. Let's not make this about hatred of BUSH....it is far too complex for that. There is know room for finger pointing, we need real solutions and blaming is what little kids that know no better do. Rest assured the Democrates are in power now and we will see if they can set aside their politics and work for a common solution. By the way...I support and voted for Pres. Bush because as far as my son was concerned he was the better CIC given the choices offered.