el viajero,

So sorry - you are correct in your assesment of my statement about what the word "God" implies...still, you get my point that it does not consider those who may be Buddhist, who may be Muslim, or otherwise...it does not include them in a public showing of faith.

As for public opinion...I disagree with you there. The shift has been a steady, constant one...now the American public has been polled on whether or not this war was right - *regardless* of finding WMD. They say 'yes.' Which was not the case before the war. So - you see there is indeed an element of "fair weather" showing of support for this war. So...the shift was a big one.

Wolf,

On teaching - my point is that bias will always be a part of education. Is it ideal to remove bias? That is what we are debating. I did not use history lessons as an excuse - but as an example. It happens. Period. And should it? All I can tell you that a conservative college professor of mine made me think more critically than ever before due to his right-leanings. It made me UNDERSTAND the other side. Is the purpose of teaching to simply remember and regurgitate facts - or UNDERSTAND their significance? By seeing and understanding bias, one learns a great deal of understanding.

U.N.: Here's how I view the mission of the U.N. A communication channel to discuss matters of the world in the interest of peace. Period. Is debate and argument a part of communication? Absolutely...that is how we come to understand eachother. So I see no wrong in the U.N.'s role of facilitating discussion/debate/arguments. So, while you may not be able to point out a war that the U.N. has successfully waged - it appears you're using the wrong criteria for judging it's effectiveness. War is not the definition of it's role. As for significant roles it HAS played (non-war), see their web site. 191 conflicts were averted according to their Web site (and even if that is slanted info...surely some of those can be proven by independent sources as successfully averted - even 1/3 of those they claim were averted, it's still worth it my mind). Anyone who see's war as the U.N.'s measure of success will surely be disappointed.

And by the way, I hear you speak of (in so many words) a "U.N. Agenda." Don't forget the U.N. consists of representatives of countries. They only represent the opinion of their country (or government...). So when you say "U.N. Agenda" I say "World Agenda."

Your "ivory tower" rant is a two-way street. You should have gone to live in central Baghdad with your family while the worst of this war was waged - risked the fact that your mother could be bombed in a market or other "missed targets" and tell me if this war is worth it.

And by the way - just how has this war protected our rights? What threat was there to our freedoms from a weak regime that has nearly been toppled in three weeks? I fail to see this...and no one has addressed it despite queries from other people.

I have never said the Iraqi regime was a pleasant rule of law to live under. What I did say was that I didn't agree that the potential consequences it could create - both in and outside Iraq. My interest was about the least amount of human suffering. It's a fair, but predictive argument considering that this war was justified on *predicted* threat - not real threat (pre-emptive = prediction).

As for the rest of your last posting - once again it's back to name-calling and a clear absence of facts - more name-calling, more "Baghdad Bobs" and more "traitor" innuendos pointed in my direction for offering up a different point of view. And what would be funny if it weren't so sad and desparate, is your attempt to discredit me for ignoring people's experiences in brutal dictatorships. Have I done that? No. Did I express joy over our welcome in Baghdad? Yes. Like most people, I only want the best from this situation - even if I'm wrong (which I have yet to be convinced of...and again history will determine that years from now). It's a shame you took offense at the Rush remark...it appears you share his distorted form of "logic."

I know you are but what am I - that is what you and I are doing - quite futile and pointless and contrary to the facilitation and understanding of arguments of all sides of this issue. Blah! Boring!

(but on a lighter note, thank you for those media links...I will explore them because there are slants on all sides of this - and as mentioned earlier, I *do* try to stay balanced in all this madness by exploring every media outlet possible)