Keep this up, Shelley, and some Republican congressman is going to make sure that you get a job that keeps you working 16 hours a day until after the election.

Funny stuff, much more effective than rants, in my opinion.

You and I are on the same page today--which I consider a compliment to myself.

And Loren, I'd take the job, even if it was from a Republican. Shows you the depths I'd stoop...

Mutual compliment, Tom. Mutual compliment.

Amen!

Not to nit-pick, but it's Representative Gephardt, not Senator. The pertinent Senator here would be Daschle. Gephardt doubtless calculates that he's gained a comparative advantage over Daschle in the 2004 Democratic nomination jockeying by appearing with the President, while Daschle is left behind to read a prepared statement to an empty Senate chamber.

Oops. Thanks, Pedant, for correction.

It is easy to play the peace-loving liberal when it comes to war. It is easy to garner the popular Internet fringe vote onto your side. But frankly, I found today's bit far less educated that most of your other posts. First of all, I found nothing interesting or telling in the article about Bush's father - the link was completely irrelevant conspiracy theory. Secondly, peace comes from the tip of a bullet, if you don't understand that you had better stay in college for the rest of your life and leave the politics to those with heart.
Waiting for Saddam to develop a weapon of mass-destruction is not the time to decide to stop him. Saddam has a track record of erratic and paranoid behavior which far rivals President Bush. I have little doubt that after acquiring a nuclear weapon he would use it as a threat from a single man - this is reprehensible in a modern world. The answer? Shoot first.
Maybe you want something prettier than that, maybe you want Panda bears and holding hands, but that's the way it is in the real world. Spare us the blind liberalism - thanks.

"Peace comes from the tip of a bullet"

No, death comes from the tip of a bullet. Peace comes from people who grow tired of death.

As for support for peace on the Internet, I find that the drums of war garner far more support, as witness the popularity of weblogs such as Glenn Reynolds.

We, as a nation, have no right to enforce UN security regulations, and there is no clear evidence that Saddam is more of a threat to us than many other countries. Our president has shown us no proofs, only given us conjecture and blanket, blind statement such as "Saddam is an evil man". That's a hell of thing to base war on, don't you think?

But then, we won't feel the effects of those bullets for peace will we? Or should I say, we at home who are not the soldiers who will have to fight in the cities of Iraq, or the civilians who are 'necessary casualties of war', won't feel the bullets of peace. Will we?

The only blanketed statements I see are the ones flying from the liberal side of the argument. Peace has always, and will for the foreseeable future, always come at the hands of force. This is not always bad - revolutions, uprising, overthrows. Ghandi was a failure, his people became a fragmented wanna-be liberal shamble because neither he nor they had the backbone to firmly commit to anything, always trying to please everyone.

We have no right to enforce resolutions WHY? WHY? Where is that written? The Bible? The Liberal Code? We have the right to do whatever we feel like frankly, although hopefully it is controlled by morals. You are not shown intelligence data because to show data inevitably compromises it's source when reviewed by a seasoned intelligence veteran - of course I speak of the Iraqis. Do you really think that Bush makes this stuff up and the committees as well? Are you that seriously paranoid? They are humans just like you. I have never opposed the draft and would go if I was called, do not assume my stance on fighting the way I'm defending. I believe it is every American's responsibility to fight if so asked, because the security you feel while writing your weblog was payed for in someone's blood. My best friend is currently joining the Army and will likely see combat in an Iraqi conflict. Do not assume I do not know the cost of war. The cost of doing nothing is far greater. WWI, WWII, the defeat of the Romans are all examples of what happens when you assume that peace is the natural state. It is not the natural state of things.

Security comes from a gun. I repeat my previous remark, reworded. I know how that statement enflames the liberal senses, but it is no less true.

Shelley, sometimes I think that your words actually hurt your causes. This time I don't feel that way. I still disagree with your mainly liberal viewpoint on this but I respect your agruement and can't see anything that would tend to shut someone's ears to hearing it.

On the other hand, there's Dean. Wow. Sorry Dean, but even though I agree with where you are coming from - I regretfully think we should actively remove Saddam from power now - I need to distance myself from your words.

Peace comes at the tip of a bullet? No.... peace comes from a consideration of points of view that differs from yours. Usually a tip of a bullet impedes any kind of open discourse.

Peace always comes at the hands of force? No... only the enforcement of society's rules and laws do. We've been a nation more at less at peace within ourselves for almost 150 years now. Not because of and force but instead, again, open discourse.

How about this instead Dean:

As long as you keep slamming those 'liberals' using harsh and hurtful words that can be misunderstood to say you do not repsect their point of view, you will never achieve 'peace' with them.

Saddam takes that sort of rhetoric (calling us an 'Evil Empire') and escalates it. At what point in that escalation does he cross a line? At what point has he no longer the freedom to act because he has found the tip of my nose? Is it invading Kuwait? Or using scuds on Israel? Or sponsering terrorists to attack the WTC? Or working feverishly to build weapons of mass destruction? Or actually proving to everyone that has built them? Or does he actually have to use them?

Somewhere in here is that line. That is what this debate should focus on. Not Bush and his father. Not 9/11 and Usama. And not the UN. Where is that line and what is OUR reaction to his crossing it.

Now before anyone looks at my comment about Saddam and rhetoric - calling us an Evil Empire - replies with "Well, Bush is using that exact same word 'Evil' for Saddam" I'd like to say this: Saddam HAS acted in non-humane ways for his own personal power gains. Remember the Kurds? Remember Kuwait? Bush has not. So far, the only true actions he has done is free many Afghanis. Something that he would not have even done is the WTC had not been attacked by forces that Saddam has (at least) allied himself with in the past.

When Chamberline, the liberal, wanted peace at all costs, he lost the war. He thought Hitler is like himself, but it wasn't the case, like now.
Like all dictators, Sadam wants to take over the world.
And they are not really people like you and me. They hate us, since when they live in poverty, have little rights and from childhood are educated to hate us, because of our good life.

But Sadam himself will use nuclear weapons.

Unless we stop him.