Boy, this is a tough one, once we get past the trite little comments and into the deep pool of reflection.

On one hand we have a President who seems hell bent on leather to get into a shooting war when all he really needs to knock of this idiot is a well thought out, and focused embargo on one industry (oil) to deny this "carrot and stick" tinhorn of his club. Two to three years later and "voila" he would be gone by his own people and nary a shot fired by anyone other than the people whose future is at stake. Painful? Yeah, but less painful and deadly than bombs and M16's. And not as much suffering as an unsustainable embargo on everything, that hurts the average citizen more than Sadaam ever could, and causes much more anger at us. And he has a Secretary of State that would be able to carry it out. As an aside, the only warrior in Bush's cabinet is also the most peace loving of the bunch. Message there for anyone?

Korea? This whole thing is a ploy by a country that is economically in desperate straights. If we did the humane kind of outreach right now, instead of the drumbeating, this would go away in a heartbeat. In fact, that is the gambit being played by the NK's, IMO. But one shouldn't downplay that, as they are desperate and if relief doesn't happen which allows survival, then I believe they will go the way of desperation. And as we saw some 50 years ago, they can play that one well.

But the one thing that must not be overlooked by all of my peace loving friends, is September 11 and the cells that are now being uncovered all over the world. There are 3,000 people dead in one attack. And the network, that has pledged itself to destroying the US, as well as Israel, is not going to go away. In fact, if we changed, and caused Israel (presuming we could) to change, all policies that these folks object to, that would still not cause the attack to cease. These folks have pledged their lives to our destruction. Now, you can talk to me all you would like to about the policies of Bush, and you won't get much disagreement. A foreign policy that I would find agreeable would be much different than the one in place. But, when it comes to attacks on my country, and a desire to destroy my children, I must tell you that I adopt a different response. Just as I demand peace and stability and safety for all the children of this planet, I also demand it for mine. I would do almost anything to attain a peaceful solution for these times, but sacrificing my children's future isn't one of those things. That is thing that always gets lost in these debates. It is easy to talk about what is wrong, but what is the answer. Poking holes in this cowboy's policy is not difficult, but are we supposed to lay back and allow more terroristic attacks that kill thousands. I think not.

Oddly enough, in the days following September 11 I thought this Presidents response was appropriate. I felt that he was correct to go after, in a very focused way, the folks that carried out the attack. But what he has done since, or should I say what his advisors have done since in his name, ais leading us down a very precarious path.

Tough issues. And they demand more thought than the trite little remarks that one often hears during these times. I wish those with a very specific agenda could be forced outside of their comfort zones to answer these more specific questions.

Mick