"Yeah right. We contribute with what we can. As it is, we Danes have around 25% of our standing forces tied up in international efforts... Damn, but it angers me when uninformed people make uninformed statements."

If you are more informed than me, kudos, but frankly I'm not uninformed. The point made above is that we are going to live and die by international participation. I thank those nations, personally, for every soldier sent to aid our efforts, but, frankly, you have to admit that when looking at the raw numbers those nations that opted not to help probably wouldn't have contributed enough to have made much of a difference.

It's a Machiavellian world. I wish it were safe and congenial enough that every nation, no matter how small, had an equal amount of influence, but that isn't how things work. I appreciate what the French did in Afghanistan, but it would be nuts to say "well, we have 30+ nations and hundreds of thousands of troops at our disposal, but since we lack a few thousand French troops, let's call it off". Iraq was no different.

Again, I respect the contribution of small countries, but if a factory had a strike and only 2% of the workers stayed home, it doesn't shut down production. I don't mean to demean what WAS contributed, but I don't really fret over what wasn't given the numbers involved.

When I said that the effort was symbolic, I meant that the inclusion or exclusion of these troops isn't going to make or break the effort the way people like Kerry try and pretend. Our alliances are important, but to say that 7,000 ISAF troops would turn Iraq from a "quagmire" to a rousing success is silly.

I apologize for the bruised feelings. Of course some nations made a greater effort than others. The fact is, though, that the ISAF in Afghanistan is something like 7000 troops. That is from 30+ nations. The Danish troop count in Iraq is 500 or so, right?

Those 500 are risking their lives and doing important things, no one is denying that and it is appreciated. You could hardly say, though, that Iraq would be going much more swimmingly if we had another 7000 ISAF troops amid the 100,000+ US troops that are there.

Some people here want to pretend that had we had some huge mandate that the Iraqi people would have been more welcoming and not started lopping off heads. Sadly, that just isn't true.

He should be, there's certainly been enough sins in the last few years for someone to die for . . .

This is the same President that drove away all of the allies that stood beside us in Afganistan, who brought us into a war that the UN has declared illegal, and that has every European country hating us again (even the UK, as Tony Blair is NEVER going to be reelected even by his own party.

The U.N. has no credibility to declare anything. Saddam had the French, Russians, and the U.N. in it's pockets. That's why they objected to the war.

Oh the poor european countries are going to hate us. How many people actually care?

No mate I'm not jealous at all I feel sad for the country of USA and its people and wonder what Washington would have thought of all this.....If u claim to be a superpower u should elect someone able to lead not some texas cowboy who fails to learn from his mstakes and consults with priests before announcing his candidature.

Reply By: joe_blackPosted: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 No mate I'm not jealous at all I feel sad for the country of USA and its people and wonder what Washington would have thought of all this.....If u claim to be a superpower u should elect someone able to lead not some texas cowboy who fails to learn from his mstakes and consults with priests before announcing his candidature.

You seem to forget something very important in your comments. First of all Washington would probably be fine with this election - the candidate with the most votes won - plain and simple. If you are referring to Bush's religious beliefs - I will remind you that all the founding fathers were devout christians - so I imagine they would be fine with that too. Why do you want them to be godless? Does that make them better? Looks like prejudice in the other direction.

Funy you should mention Washington specifically though. Here is a very famous painting of him: Link Notice anything?

I will remind you that all the founding fathers were devout christians - so I imagine they would be fine with that too.

George Washington's diaries indicate that he rarely attended church. There is quite a bit of evidence that indicates that he was a Deist. He even once appointed appointed a Universalist who denied the existence of hell, to be an army chaplain. That's definitely not something a "devout christian" would do.

Thomas Jefferson went to far as to produce a revised New Testament that omitted any references to Christ's miracles and portrayed Jesus Christ as just an extraordinary man who in the end, was just a man, not the son of God.

Benjamin Franklin clearly stated on several occasions that he was a Deist.

And last but not least....James Madison, who is often regarded as the father of the Constitution once wrote;

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

So Vecctor....which founding fathers are you referring to that were "devout christians"?

"that he was a Deist."

Correct me if I am wrong, but Deists are Christians too.

but it bothers me a lot when people justify religious values being merged with policies such as abortion, stem cell research, etc

I was not doing this

But strictly speaking abortion does not have to be a religious issue (same with those others). It can be simply a moral one or a belief in personal responsibility. I know an atheist that is not enthused about abortion. Relegion does not equal ultra-morality any more than lack of religion equals ultra-immorality.