Jim

Come on. We're not talking about the difference between our form of government and a parliamentary system. You know that most Iraqi's were not "deciding" to stay under Saddam. He was a despot but, if they want despotism, they will be able to have their say soon enough. You bemoan any civilians caught in a crossfire but have no sympathy for those killed intentionally by a tyrant. I mourn innocent life lost but objectively Iraqis are better off today than they were before the invasion. They have a chance for freedom. We were right to think that most Iraqi's would rather govern themselves. If terrorists think that most American people would prefer to live under a religious dictatorship, they are wrong. Wrong. Saddam had the burden of proving that he disarmed. We extracted this concession as a price for leaving him in power after Gulf War I. Saddam invaded a strategically important US ally, lost, agreed to disclose the destruction of his WMDs and then violated that aggreeement even as US forces were building up to attack. It would have been an easy matter to prove what happened to the WMDs but, for what seems to be irrational reasons, he did not. This is not too surprising in that he irrationally attacked Kuwait in the first place and also tried to assassinate a former US president. Saddam had to go but as a side benefit his atrocities have ceased and Iraq has a chance at freedom. It takes just a bit of imagination to realize that the reality as it exists today is much better for Iraqis. I would tell them what I just told you. We are there because of the entire history of Saddam as it played out from 1991 forward. You said the "death of a leader will only encourage more fundamentalists to retaliate and seek revenge." Why does it depend on how many innocent people are "sacrificed?" Sounds like you would oppose killing Osama regardless of the number of collateral deaths. If you are serious about looking for the causes of terrorism, I cannot recommend reading Bernard Lewis enough. tHE Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing acknowleges that Lewis has emerged as "the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East." So, we should cut and run regardless of the consequences? We should abandon the courageous Iraqis who have come forward to join the police forces and man the government?

I believe the idea is that the power to tax is the power to destroy so this is a power government does not have over religion. I'd have to think about this quite a bit more, and research the history, before coming to a conclusion. My gut reaction is that they should pay property and income taxes.

It is probably as irrelevant as is the total number of deaths to the amount of per capita compensation which should be awarded. As I said from the beginning, the first step is to consider the principles involved which justify compensation. Only then can we assess whether we should compensate.

There is no reason to say that we have not "seriously considered" our foreign policy. You may disagree but at least give us the credit that we do think about this war in which we have staked our reputation and lives. If the policy is correct, the image will follow. If Iraq turns into a stable democracy the benefits are incalculable. This was a war to remove Saddam. It has succeeded on this level and no we are trying to achieve aditional benefits. What are the "values" to which are you referring and what actions, specifically, do we need to take to change ourselves?

It's hard to respond to this post because it assumes so much. It declares that the Iraq war was not justified and appears to assume that the innocent Iraqi people would be better off today under Saddam. It also appears to put no blame one Zarqawi for putting civilians in harms way. It ignores the situation of the Iraqi citizen who may appreciate that Saddam does not rule this country but has hunkered down to see which way the war will fall. It also proves way too much. If "the death of a leader will only encourage more fundamentalists to retaliate and seek revenge," then we should immediately cease trying to kill Osama.

I thought they just got an insurance policy that was no where near the millions that went to 9/11 survivors. I suppose this makes sense however, the amounts involved are staggering: Another rationale is to simply refuse to let terroritsts succeed. If terrorists attack us we are not going to let them impoverish families. This rationale should apply equally to domestic terrorism. As far as the relative impact of the act on the community, hands down 9/11 was a vastly more significant event. However, as was noted in the Chicago Tribune: It does seem strange that 9/11 victims are overnight millionares whereas the OKC bombing famlies are in some cases destitute:

I agree there is a grain of truth to what she wrote BUT she always goes several steps beyond necessary. Tucker Carlson said the other night that he thinks she must have masochistic tendencies. I will also say that there is some resentment in my home state as to the relative financial treatment of the 9/11 vrs the OKC bombing victims.

I agree that if you enter the public arena you are fair game and that she may have some valid points about specific widows. HOWEVER, sheesh, to say what she said seems self-destructive. I know she doesn't pull punches but good grief, to say that never have widows enjoyed the deaths of their husbands?

If you've not seen the clip, it's worth watching. "I Have Never Seen People Enjoying their Husbands’ Death So Much??" Yowzers.

Behold the posthumous power of rezprez. His name has now become a verb. Without reviewing the whole thread to see who said what, I can see how the question of bigotry could be a legitimate topic of debate. I suppose it all comes down to the race analogy. 1. Is the discrimination based upon an immutable characteristic? 2. Has the class at issue been subjected to a long term history of damaging discrimination? 3. How compelling is the state interest in the discrimination? 1. Probably. I'm willing to be educated on this issue. 2. Yes, albeit not as severely as were African Americans. 3. There was no good faith argument that there was a state interest in discriminating against African Americans. Is there a good faith argument that there is a legitimate state interest in not allowing gays to marry? The analogy is imperfect but not frivolous.

This makes a difference on two levels. The more invincible Zarqawi seemed' date=' the more emboldened his followers would become. From the coalition perspective, Osama, as the democrats like to remind us, has not been caught and I'm sure the failure to capture or kill Zarqawi while our allies constantly took hits was damaging to morale. The more Iraqis believe this war is winnable the more of them will take a risk to join the police forces, provide tips, etc. There's little question that this helps although no one is claiming a few deaths will end all terrorist attacks. Edit: Here's a collection of National Review comments on the issue. My personal hero, Victor Hanson, writes:

It's a good thing. I would not justify deaths caused by terrorists with the death of another terrorist.

Validation isn't the right word but we all do want to be accepted. You could give gays all the legal rights of married people without calling it a marriage. I don't think this would be, nor should be, acceptable to gays. Could you see a religious argument if you believed that marriage was an institution created by God for men and women?

In theory, I don't have a problem with the people refining their Consititution. In this instance, my BS meter is pegged to the max.

I'm repulsed by Reid's blatant use of Haditha along with another laundry list of complaints. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Democratic_leader_enumerates_issues_gay_marriage_0605.html What an irrational mishmash of concepts. Atrocities occur in war, sometimes by military "necessity" (How could airborne troops make prisoners of every German that surrendered the night before D-Day and still accomplish their objectives?) and other times simply because a kid with enough firepower to level a small city blows a fuse. The ultimate test of character is not adversity but is to be given power over other human beings and Americans, like all nationalities, will fail this test from time to time. You won't get such things to simply "stop" and to act like this is a question of Presidential leadership is false and cynical in the extreme. I can accept cynical politics in some areas but not in questions of national security. As Americans we are ashamed when our own commit atrocities and we should insist on prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. If those up the chain of command tried to cover this up, they should also pay the fullest price allowed by due process. However, it should stay out of the political sphere. I had been fairly encouraged that not many had tried to use Haditha for political ends. Edit: Note Reid's sleight of hand: First he praises the troops when it was troops that caused the atrocity and then mixes the issue with that of the war being a stalemate. Well, sorry, but if Haditha is as reported it was the fault of the troops involved and, to a lesser extent, those who tried to cover up the atrocity. It's a question of personal responsibility. Look at that again in slow motion: The troops are valiant and "...24 or more civilians were allegedly killed by our own—and no policy for winning the peace..." Is he excusing the atrocity of the few troops involved just so he can make political hay at a higher level? Seems so to me. (Pangloss edit: Fixed the URL.)

I allow for the strong feelings which might exist on this issue on both sides yet the timing appears cynical, the remedy disproportionate to the pretext and, worst of all, Republicans are provoking a pissing match on hollowed ground. I defend the Bush administration these days more than most here, sometimes out of a contrarian stubbornness. Not this time. Two wrongs do not make a right but Reid's diatribe qualified for a far distant second place "outrage of the week:" How can any American make political hay out of Haditha? This is a week where there are no limits.

Could you explain what you mean by this?

It didn't seem we ever got a satisfactory answer as to what the Brits are doing to control their own borders. I received an emails with a bunch of Arabic protesters carrying outrageous signs ("slay those who insult islam;" "Europe is the Cancer; Islam is the Answer;" "Islam will Dominate the World."). My first reaction was assume that this was a put up job, so I went to snopes who actually validated the photos. This has me wondering if Britain borders might be as out of control as our own.