Nuclear

Ya see, Iraq was a provider of weapons to terrorists. We stopped them before they could continue to develop into a greater threat like NK has. Although Bin laden may or amy have not been in Iraq, destroying Saddam's regime has helped put a dent in terror supporting nations...Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are on the to do list. NK is a unique country as I think they are more interested in their own glory than they are giving their weapons to some wacko to walk into a restaurant screaming 'allah ackbar'(isn't ackbar the squid dude in Star Wars?) NK is a threat, more so as a country itself than as a supplier. How do we fight drugs on the streets? We prevent them from being smuggled in from Canada, Mexico, and our ports. We stop the suppliers. We have foreign governments helping to stop them also. This is the same with terrorism, only terrorists kill faster than drugs and can only be stopped by killing the terrorists themselves...

Memories of the Bosnian coflict that went against the UN Security Coucil by a certain Slick willie went almost unopposed! We lost troops in a war that didn't even do anything for this country....We're not the world's parent and it's not our job to clean house....even when the UN DOES approve something(this usually happens before the French can surrender) the force behind any UN action HAS TO BE THE US backed up with some of our buddies in the UK. If the US dropped out of the UN, they'd have the military capabilities of Greenland!

The media, spare a select few, are brainwashed drones of the left.

It seems every political issue out there is the same...the dems/libs vs. repubs/conservs We can't agree in the middle on something that is good. In this case you get one side who wants to help people and the other, although willing to help is sick of the free riders.... It seems that whoever is has the President in their party defends him/her and has things their way. Then we switch back when a new party is in office.... It's a vicious cycle. I hope one day we can all be sitting around a camp fire and those who were right get to point at those who were wrong and say "I told ya so." It'd sure make me feel better. Who is right you ask? That depends on which side you're on. ;-)

I'm not pointing to abortion as the solution! No way. I view that as killing the person. I believe perhaps a population control...i dunno...cause u take someone who has 5 kids at 25 and sucks off the system, you make them so they can't have more kids, and if they remarry and manage to work hard for once and make money to support 10 kids, they now can't....i dunno. there has to be a solution....

We'll never know what would have happened had we not invaded Iraq....had we let them go, maybe a dirty bomb or two would have gone off in a US city by now..... There was the chance of it happening...the chance of millions of my fellow countrymen to die. Two years ago(doens't feel like it, wow) over 3,000 innocent people died cause some wacko doesn't like us. I'm not gonna let the remaining wackos get another shot at us. Even the risk of it is enough evidence for me...even if it means we have to eventually conquer the entire planet! Found this the day after writing this post: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...a34457_2003sep6 Check it out.

The US wasn't founded to be the world's parent or to help everyone. Every day we lose American jobs to foreigners willing to work for half the American pay. 60% of the food and medical support for the world comes from the US. It's not our job to help the world out cause next to no one returns the favors. We're not here to be altruistic. Our military was founded to defend our soil. We were attacked, so now we're going to eliminate the enemy from the face of the earth. Once completed, we'll probably go back to ignoring the middle east(and a good thing too cause it's like a soap opera over there!)

Nk is a sticky situation...in Iraq we stopped them from getting the weapons to threat level but with NK, if we try the same way, they may use them on us....even though we could sink them and their little peninsula into the China Sea, we still can't risk an attack on the US or our allies of Canada and Japan.... I think the current course is good but we do need to figuratively bring our hand to hover over our pistol(think western movies)

Why does the UN want some of the control in Iraq? They didn't do squat in helping take out Saddam....they didn't front any of the risk so therefore shouldn't get any of the spoils. I say if we want the U's help that we leave Iraq with the threat to them that if Saddam or any other wacko takes over and they can't put together a democracy of some kind that we'll come back again and clean house again. When we pull out, the UN will go in and take care of it cause they'll have to. Yeah we'll take heat but who cares?

Sign me up, Mr. Read. I'm all game. I can solve the Iraq problem too. Just give me a tank and a lot of bullets. There will be no more terror attacks against our troops who are there trying to help these people!

I also understand Clinton sold secrets to the Chinese about nukes(whom not a year later gave us a hard time with that plane which they all but shot down) and Clinton also took taxpayer dollars and used it to buy off the NK's...just so he could avoid dealing with them...

I see this as a good sollution. When people have intercourse they should be cautious about getting pregnant, etc. too.

I've thought a lot about this and I'm gonna put out a theory I've thought of. The revolves around the issue of welfare. I am for it in regards to helping people in need, but detest it when people abuse it. I am working my way through college part time at a grocerey store so I see a lot of people come through on welfare. Democrats: They are for it and usually(esp. the liberal ones) are not big on controling welfare. Republicans: Against it, to some degrees wanting it gone completely. I side with the Repubs but not as extreme to want to eliminate the system. My theory is this: A lot of Dems are those who were born into wealth and don't really need to worry about money and for the msot part, never have. The vast majority of the rest are the poor who benefit from the social programs. A lot of Repubs either earned their way into their financial status or they are middle class workers who end up paying the bulk of the taxes. Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking anyone's political views or how they acquired their wealth or lack there of. My theory is this. I see people come through my line at the store who have three kids and are about my age(22) and there is no way they can support themselves let alone three kids. A program called WIC(Women and Infant Care) will continue to support them....even if they continue to have MORE children. I've heard stories of women having sas many kids as they can so they can live off the child support. (Not attacking women here, they just happen to be the ones who usually keep the kid while the father disappears) I forsee these women having more kids. These women support the social programs and therefore deomcrats. Their children will probably be the same. As the amount of people who suck off the system increase, the amount of those who support the system will be forced into poverty, many tossing in the towel and sucking off the system themselves. Eventually you'll have the super rich and the super poor. In theory, it could level out with the rich helping the poor(or escaping through those darn loop holes - THANK YOU IRS) and then everyone is middle class, but who knows. This could go in circles easily. It isn't rocket science, but I think the only sollution to preventing anything crazy like my poor description above is to put controls on welfare. I'm ALL for helping someone who is having a bad year or two, but those who want to suck off the system and continue to have children well past their financial capabilities, something needs to be done. What? I don't know. I think a flat tax is a place to start. It's a wild theory and I'd love feedback, theories to solving the problem of deadbeats. Why should I pay for someone who doesn't want to work. I don't mind helping people, but the system has become crazy.

To be secular for a moment, let's substitute every one's personal faith for nature. If a child grows up with two dads or two moms or what not, how will that child ever come to understand the family unit the way nature designed: For procreation. That's my thoughts.

I saw a great political comic about this: It showed the guy who refused to remove the monument in court taking the stand about this whole thing.... And he is asked ot put his hands on THE BIBLE and state "I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me GOD." I thought it summed up how the separation between church and state is not a canyon but a squiggily line...

What ticks me off is President Bush has put his foot down and committed the US to ending terrorism and making not just the US safe but the entire world safe. This is something the entire world should embrace. Every country should be actively searching for terrorists. Many look the other way, and many have helped, but many jsut sit back and let the US and our few allies do the dirty work. Isn't the ulitmate goal to have it so people are only dying of natural causes one day??? Won't getting rid of terrorism bring us a lot closer to that? So all those nations who are doing nothing, get moving!

My question is where will the line be drawn? If you allow two men or two women to marry, what about three men and a women, or two women and a man(I know several people who'd LOVE that) or a cat and a man and a horse? Where will the line be drawn? And all this time I thought the purpose of sex was procreation....

At www.religioustolerance.com It is reported that Islam believesJesus Christ was nothing but another prophet or messanger from God. They do NOT believe that he was crucified OR that he was resurrected. Although his Resurrection is a matter of faith, if I am correct, his cruicfiction is a historical(secular) fact. Point me out if I'm mistaken on that. Doesn't this create an error?

I have to agree with Fastned. It's not ok for us to go into Iraq to defend ourselves but it's ok to go into Liberia to place police??? I think we should let the UN handle it as it doesn't effect us. This is one of the few things the President has done that I don't completely agree with. Then again, he does have access to information that none of us do so perhaps there is an alternative reason(s).

Also remember that another link to terrorism in Iraq is all these attacks happening at all. The attacks are becoming more and more organized...do you think these are civillians giving one last fight for their old government? I don't think so. Craig is right in what he says. It's obvious that there are terror ties in Iraq. I do find it ironic that the UN refused security and then got hit. They're a bunch of morons anyhow. It's too bad people had to die for Kofi to wake up and have his coffee.

If Hitlerly Klinton somehow buys/sleeps her way into the Oval Office, I'm moving to another country. Don't get me wrong, I love it here but if she were to grab the reins, I know we're all going down then!

Wow. Talk about being ruffled up. The United States of America is the Greatest Nation on earth because the people who lived here came here to work hard and to make it that way. Do you think it's because we got lucky or discovered some secret to allow us to be more successful? No, it's hard work. It's a system that was set up to be fair and equal. I can't believe you would wish innocent people to die for no reason. The United States has saved the world more than once(WW1 and WW2 are two good examples) and is very quick to offer aid and money to almost any nation in need without expecting retribution(which we NEVER get)....The USA has been around for over 200 years and will be here long after we're all gone.

I completely agree that AA is racist. I believe that in the attempt to become 'diverse' that we acknowledge the difference between people of different races and therefore continue to take that into account. Have you ever thought of how you notive hair colors on people? Most people don't and if they do, they don't judge them by it. It's like they are saying it's ok for racism to exist so long as it's against the 'majority'