There is not a single solitary soldier or marine in Iraq who did not voluntarily join his/her branch of service. Anyone who has been in the service knows that you may be called on to go to war. Those who joined the service for the benefits may have been surprised to learn that simply being a member of the military wouldn't hack it. You may be called on to fight.

The congress of the United States authorized the president to go to war if he deemed it necessary. Based on the information available, not only to him but other world leaders, Saddam presented an imminent threat. It turns out that he did not. However, I believe had Saddam have been left in power, he would have eventually developed WMD, made them available to terrorist organizations, or used them himself against the U. S. and our allies.

The world is full of Monday morning quarterbacks, and certainly the Mudcat is populated with it's fair share.

I repeat what I have said time and again here on the "Cat". If Kerry is elected, it will be a disaster for the war on terror. There will be now war. Kerry will treat it as a police action and that won't get the job done.

Those of you who profess to support the soldiers do not consider how demoralizing it must be to the troops, you say you support, to read and hear about protestors, like yourselves, who question the mission they are assigned.

Better that the battles be fought and won in Iraq than on the streets of New York.

Now, Amos, if you don't understand THAT, I doubt YOU can contribute much to this discussion.

And Jim, do you remember how troops returning from Vietnam were treated when they returnted home by the same kind of protestors that are marching against the war on terror? Perhaps you weren't old enough, but many of those returning soldiers, sailors and marines would be hard pressed to buy the statement from such people that "we're not against the soldiers."

DougR