Very well put. I can't argue much about it. It won't do any good anyways. :)
The subject has been beating to death here.



>>>I couldn't agree more, but I would add intolerance to the list of undesirable teachings. People are different and have every right to differing beliefs as long as they don't feel so self-rightious in that everyone must believe their way. Don't try to legislate morality or impose certain beliefs on others. That kind of intolerance breeds hatred and can lead to killing in the name of religion. I never said that all religion is bad, nor is belonging to no religion. It is all about right and wrong.
>>
>>One of the reason why I voted Bush was he was able give a straight answer more often, more so then Kerry anyway.
>>
>>There are lot of thing I don't like about Bush (i.e. the budget def.) I don't like people who dance around simple questions and give conflicting answers.
>
>The primary reason why I did not vote for Bush was that I don't agree with his ideology, world view and direction. I like many others was less fearful of the unknown (and possible gridlock with Kerry and a republican congress) than I am of what I know about Bush and this administration and the mandate that he thinks he got on Tuesday 11/2. I am more of a fiscal conservative, civil libertarian and social liberal and this administration by its actions, affilliations and views conflict with what I think is prudent.
>
>I think we are in trouble with the exploding deficit that will be decades to overcome. The economy is being ignored except for the bomb makers and war industry. Private sector job losses are at an all time high. Job growth during this administration hasn't been in the private sector but mostly federal and other public sector jobs. That is not really a conservative ideal, though homeland security and TSA, necessary to deal with post 9/11, did add many of those public sector jobs. I also have some real concerns about potential abuses possible with the Patriot Act that was hurriedly drafted and passed after 9/11 but that is a different topic for another day.
>
>Bringing the terrorists who attacked us to justice should be a top priority and working to change policies, conditions and attitudes that has helped breed terrorism should be right up there as well. I agree that Saddam was a very bad man, expecially to his own people, and should have never been in power and supported in the first place. But shifting the war on terror to that cause (because they could due to the public support after 911) while not concentrating on the real target has IMO made the world more dangerious. Don't get me wrong, the Iraqi people and (arguably) the rest of the world is probably better off without Saddam in power, but the way that this war was sold to the American people and the world, the timing and the "you're either with or you're against us" attitude and the motives of this administration are what I question.
>
>In the days after 9/11 there was a conserted effort to find any reason to attack Iraq and make a connection. There was a different reason trotted out nearly every day until this administration pulled out the "imminent threat" of WMD's and questionable links to Al Qaeda and terrorism card and got Congress and the American people behind their agenda. I think attacking Iraq and removing Saddam was on the TO DO list long before 9/11 and only when support could be exploited in its aftermath was this administration able to do it. The military planning and execution was suffient to quickly and efficiently topple Saddam's regime with minimal casualties on the American side. However, poor understanding, planning and execution for securing and dealing with the chaos that logically followed has caused great suffering and bitterness that IMHO has greatly contributed to recruiting and breeding more terrorists than we had to deal with pre-9/11. So I question whether we are safer now than before
> Saddam was taken out.
>
>A more well thought-out, shared approach and action (and possibly war), with world support, might have be a better alternative and I believe it could have been accomplished had there been as much effort expended as was used in spinning and posturing to get Congress, the American people and the "Collition of the willing" to buy into the war. The timing and selling was expedient to not have to do the "hard work" that another option might have required, however we might have avoided some of the divisive, potentially disasterious effects that the "chosen" path has brought about.