[Ronaldus Magnus Reagan]

The world is moving away from an Empirical model of world power and into a cooperative multinational framework. In this shift we have the opportunity to be a strong and reliable leader. Losing credibility and alienating the world could ultimately be far more damaging than it's worth and threaten continued American supremacy.

That's exactly what they said about Ronald Reagan and his implementation of the Pershing II missles in Europe to counter the Soviet's SS-20 missles. THEY were wrong. Pacifists always are. And you are wrong about Halliburton. That no-bid contract was started under Clinton, was renewed several times under Clinton, and renewed again with Bush. Please get your facts straight before engaging in Bush bashing. .

[wogawoga]

First off, I'm no pacifist. They are wrong insomuch as they do not allow for the unfortunate necessity of war, but they are right in that war is not the only option. The World Wars, the first Gulf War, etc. were necessary. But was Vietnam "necessary?" It's easy to say "Let's go to war," but I'm sure anybody in a position to get killed in combat would agree with me when I say that war should be a last resort. It seems that given the available information, it was neither the last resort nor necessary.

Second, I'm not "Bush bashing." I'll leave that to Kerry's drones. There are many things I like about the guy. I wouldn't be voting for him again if there weren't. You sound like some crazy lib who suddenly assumes you eat children and strangle kittens because you disagree with Kerry's latest position on something. I am simply criticizing his decisions on Iraq, but I have every right, and every obligation, to do so. Bush may manage the direction of this country and make the day-to-day decisions, but my obligation is to the people of this great nation. The people, not one man, are what make this country the envy of the world. Deciding to blind yourself to his shortcomings just because he's "our guy" is treason in my eyes.

To your points:

1. The Cold War was a real situation and not created by the placement of Pershing II missiles. Reagan was absolutely right in that because Russia was an overt threat to the world. There was no misinformation about "possible" nuclear capabilities, they had 'em and the world knew it. Reagan deftly handled US military strategy to maintain the tenuous balance of power in the world. Had he not, God only knows what could have happened. The current situation in Iraq was created by US policy, not an attempt to maintain a balance of power. (Though I'm certainly not trying to say SH didn't deserve to be removed from power.) Iraq wasn't sitting on a stockpile of nuclear weapons pointed at the US. We also had many allies in the struggle against Communism. Not the ridiculous "Coalition of the Willing" we're trying to pass off as a mandate from the world. Not even close to a similar situation, this comparison doesn't hold water.

2. Halliburton has been getting government contracts for decades under a litany of presidents, no question. They've been providing for the needs of our troops through contracts initiated and renewed by Clinton, yes. But who handed them contracts to "rebuild" Iraq? Clinton? These contracts are huge in comparison and are the ones in dispute, not those which were already in effect.

Straight enough for you?