Gerg, Very well put!! I don't hunt myself, but would love to learn. I definitely enjoy using firearms for target shooting, skeet, trap, etc.

You beat me to the punch with your reply:

Arlow, Anti GUN does not equate in any way with anti HUNTING, for the reasons pointed out so eloquently and effectively by gerg!

Again, at the risk of "repetitiousness" (hey K.C., are you sure that's even a word? It sounds WRONG to me!) I must submit that Bush is the one who is telling you all what you want to hear: terrorists around every corner, Iraq and the muslims are the enemy, WMD's, we're making progress in Iraq, I'll protect you...

You're right, this is not a monarchy; now someone needs to go and tell King George II that!

The reports that the administration provided to the Congress and to us were at the very least skewed and tainted, if not outright manufactured. Please, don't tell me that you are naive enough to believe that those reports were accurate and up to date, and that Bush and his cronies did not influence their content?

Our "screw up" in Iraq the last time was under the leadership of King George II's father, and was required by the conditions agreed to in the coalition. Although I would rather have seen the job finished then, I must admit that overall I admire the job Pres. Bush did at the time, all things considered. I supported him and the overall action taken in Iraq at that time. It was the right thing to do under the circumstances.

Hussein clearly HAD WMD's at that time. Know how he got 'em? We sold them to him during the Iraq/Iran war! More of our ill-conceived meddling and our propping up of dangerous dictatorships because doing so is convenient at the time.

Maybe Hussein had to go, but we waited this long, we could surely have waited some more, contained him, and brought further diplomatic and economic pressures to bear, built a true international consensus, and ran him out by less costly and violent means.

You cannot force democracy or regime change on a nation that is not ready for it. Nor can you determine their leadership for them. We must allow other countries the right of self determination and let them lead the way when they want to bring about change. We can certainly help and encourage them, but they have to want it, to seek it, to invest in it, and to lead the way themselves.

If he still had WMD's, then where are they? And even if he did have some limited arsenal, he was clearly no threat to the U.S. He had not the means to deliver such a device or substance to U.S. soil. If he dared use such a device or substance against one of his neighbors, then we could have acted with proper justification and moral authority. And as far as a terrorist element smuggling something into the U.S., that threat will always exist, no matter how many countries we invade and occupy. In a very real sense, the more we do so, the greater that risk becomes.

You cannot defeat a lunatic fringe by attacking a government or a soverign nation. These people operate outside such bodies, and we could take over, dominate and occupy every nation around the entire globe and would still not be able to eliminate the threat posed by these madmen.

King George II is an incompetent moron, and needs to go the way of his father: One term and out!

Your fellow American,

Jim