Iraq was never a threat? Aside from the destabilizing effect Saddam had on the entire region we know he had biological and chemical weapons. Which he used on his own people. We even know that at several points in his regime he was trying to get nukes...and yet somehow thats "ok" and not the same as actually having them. So we have a sadistic dictator who has proven he wants nuclear weapons and has shown a willingness to kill without feeling. That sounds to me like a threat...not exactly a stretch by any definition either. I don't know how most people think, but I like the idea of dealing with my enemies when they are weak rather than waiting for them to have all their ducks in a row when they will be an immediate threat. The fact that our intentions were misrepresented/wrong/whatever for going there is atotally legit complaint in my view. But that doesn't at all change the fact that there were legit reasons to go.

As an example, if you were given directions by your ex-wife to a restaurant to meet a date and she lied and told you it was on the left side of the street but you found out it was really on the right side of the street at the same intersection would you turn around and go home or go eat dinner with your date who was waiting inside? You're correct to think it may have been a bad idea to ask directions from your ex and if she did lie then you have every right to be angry! But the reality of the situation is that you're outside the restaurant and you can either go home and call your ex-wife to bitch or you can go inside and have a nice evening. Going home doesn't spite your ex, it spites yourself.

As for terrorism not being a threat, I will first say you are correct it took a number of years to develop the 9/11 plot, but it doesn't necessarily take that long for all plots to be hatched. With that said there actually have been a number of foiled plots since then, for example this article outlines 17 of them from Sept 11th 2001 to Jun 3rd 2007. The list includes a plan to release a dirty bomb in Miami, a plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, a plot against the NY Stock Exchange, a plot to attack military facilities in the LA area, a plan to destroy the Sears Tower in Chicago as well as FBI offices, and a planned attack on JFK International Airport. It is really easy to look at a list of foiled attacks and shrug them off but if you add up the number of people who die if they succeed it easily adds up very quickly to some staggering numbers, and of course we don't even know if there would have been more without our actions, which leads me to my next point...

As for how you "prove" you're winning? How long you go without a successful attack is one way to measure, albeit a bad one by itself. I would say you have to combine factors to get a good "measuring stick" so to speak. For example if you have long period (a) without a successful attack (b) with a number of foiled attacks on the US, and (c.) with a great deal of progress towards undermining their infrastructure around the world. Then I think you're definitely on the right track and I think thats a great way of measuring your success. Note that all three of those are true at the moment.

I completely understand that a lot of people feel jilted about the reasons for going to Iraq and while I sympathize I have to say "get over it". The government lies to us all the time, from the president to the congress, republicans, democrats, liberals, conservatives, and everyone in between. The fact is that this is where we are and no amount of bitching and moaning is going to change it. We can choose to moan for a few more years or make the best of the situation by not completely forfeiting the equity we have in our Iraqi operations already.

Iraq wasn't a threat to the U.S. though, unless you mean a threat to our foreign oil interests. Yeah he committed horrible crimes against humanity, but it's not America's job to protect humanity. If it was, we'd be in Darfur and the Congo instead of Iraq. (Ask Ann Coulter how she feels about that.)

There are dictators far worse than Saddam who get away with murder because they don't own the most important land mass on the planet, connecting all of the eastern hemisphere, which just also happens to be full of oil.

Also, the folks look brown in Iraq, so it's easier to trick the American people into thinking they had anything to do with 9/11. Maybe if they were Chinese terrorists on the planes, we'd have invaded Taiwan or Japan or something.

With all that said, we're already there, but I still don't agree with the "you break you buy" philosophy when it comes to war and human lives. If for some reason, the U.S. needs to keep X amount of troops abroad meddling with other countries at all times, there are places where those troops could be doing far more good, and probably even costing less money.

In order:

- Your not actually responding to her though, unless she reads this forum lol. The point of a response here is to convey to your fellow board members what is so glaringly wrong about her article and explain why Anne Coulter is not to be listened to (and I agree there are some things worth ripping apart in the article). I think Rubang was on the right idea with the quotes, but those don't really have anything to do with the article. The problem is that although they are fine examples of why Coulter is disliked (ie hated) by so many people, they are in no way a rebuttal of the article or an explanation of why it is wrong/misleading/etc...

And I sometimes feel that the article itself perfectly conveys what I feel is wrong with it as it is so obviously wrong. This is one of those times.

- Yes I did, as did damn near everyone else, "experts", politicians, pundits, and grandma included. In fact the article I linked to shows that those fears were well-founded and if you're saying you didn't think we would be attacked again then you're only admitting that you thought so incorrectly.

Clearly I thought so correctly as there haven't been any major terrorist attacks.

- I was fairly explicit in labeling the soldiers versus the civilians, so I'm not sure why you repeated it. In any case you are correct and it was, and is again, noted. I hope you will take note of my point that I believe her real intention with the comparison was to highlight that the casualties were not nearly as bad in recent months as many believe them to be and that things are getting better in Iraq.

Casualties of soldiers once again. As I say I'm not sure what civilian/Iraqi police/Iraqi Army/Coalition Army death figures are but having such an incomplete figure as American soldiers doesn't really prove anything much.

As for the civilian deaths I'm honestly not sure what it has to do with this comparison. They are certainly more than a mere cold hard statistic to me, but this comparison is about Iraq in the month of May not Iraq since the beginning of the conflict.

- I don't think Al-Qaeda is the only terrorist threat we face, let alone the primary reason we should have gone there. No matter where Al-Qaeda was at and/or where they would or wouldn't have been, the fact is this course has lead to a number of victories against them. We can second guess how we got here but thats not going to change, the only thing we can choose is the road forward.

Iraq was by no means the most dangerous rogue state (as evidenced by the fact that UN weapon inspectors found no WMDs or any sign of a WMD programme) and it was also a secular state meaning that it was by no means the most likely to harbour Islamic terrorists. Just because victories were won against them and America invaded Iraq doesn't mean invading Iraq was intelligent. Its like saying that because the Allies won WWII everything the Allies did in WWII was right - which is completely untrue.

- I like your analogy, unfortunately Thompson mentioned on FreeTalkLive that the only game he has said should be flat out banned is Manhunt (can't remember if it was one or two). He went on to also say that his position was to prevent children from purchasing these "objectionale" games. A gross mischaracterization of his position on your part, and one that highlights the pitfalls of letting your assumptions about someone run wild.

JT may be extreme in the way he goes about his business the same as Coulter is but I think you would agree children shouldn't be playing GTA IV or Mass Effect, the same way you share the same goal as Anne Coulter (ie to win the war on terror). It all comes down to a disagreement on how you do that...and maybe even whether or not it can be done....but at the very least you both want it.

He also campaigned that Bully should be banned from sale I believe. In any case both of these cases are ones where people either attacked him or flat out ignored him because he was serving his own biased agenda. As I said. Also just because he also has some reasonable views doesn't make all of his views reasonable.

To me a person who is hurling an insult at Anne Coulter is just as much a part of the problem as Coulter herself. She shreiks so her position is heard and in response they hurl insults to ratchet up the rhetoric. The result is nobody can get their point across because everyone is too stubborn to listen.

You saying that this is the way it is "whether I like it or not" only tells me that people prefer it this way..which of course implies nobody wants to fix the problem because they're just so happy arguing. I don't really buy that but it seems to be the case for the time being. You're correct in saying that there is nothing I can do to forcefully stop people from doing this (and I don't want to), all I can do is pity those who think ratcheting up the rhetoric is a good idea and hope that their stubbornness isn't the undoing of us all (which I don't think it will be).

I don't understand what you're getting at in these paragraphs. For one thing there isn't really any rhetoric as we are writing opinions on her article that she will never read. Also she has got her point across as I did read the article - I just found myself to extremely strongly disagree with her point.

- So your answer to dealing with people you really don't like is to ignore them? By that reasoning it was perfectly acceptable for Bush to ignore the protests of other UN nations in dealing with Iraq. After all he didn't really like them so he should just ignore them right?

Two things. I don't run the most powerful country in the world. Ann Coulter is largely insignificant in the grand-scheme of things. Those two factors mean that I can quite happily ignore her - along with Muslim extremists, neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers. All of whom I am quite happy to ignore or verbally attack.

Everyone recognizes at some point that you need to deal with other people to solve problems, and those other people are going to include people who you disagree with. Obviously none of us are in a position to solve these problems but really your attitude towards Coulter is just an example of political climate that prevents things from getting done. And while you can't fix the problem you can help change the political climate.

Once again, I'm not a politician. I don't actually need to deal with people like Ann and even if I was a politican I wouldn't be able to simply because my ideals are oh so very different to hers. Much like if you asked Obama (or even McCain) whether he would consider converting the Middle East to Christianity by force they would laugh at you.

- I'm honestly not trying to start a drawn out argument. I'm just trying to illustrate how the mainstream positions are creating an impasse. I doubt I will change anyone's mind from their current thinking. But I think you understand where I'm coming from just the same and you know exactly what I'm talking about when I say that these extreme and irreconcilable views are not only unhealthy but damaging to the nation as a whole.

The thing is my views are not extreme at all - well at least not in New Zealand - whereas her views are extreme pretty much anywhere.

Honestly the "what if"s of what would have happened or even will happen are highly speculative to say the least. I actually stated it as a side point and not a major one, partly for this reason.

You could certainly argue that position, but that position admits that we had two problems (Iraq and Iran) that precariously counteracted each other. And if we assume for a moment that this was the case I would ask why we should continue to rely on our enemies to counteract each other? I personally have a hard time believing any strategy that relies on our enemies continuing to act in our benefit is a good one.

Ann Coulter's books and columns are nothing more than intellectual pornography for conservatives. I would be surprised if even they took her seriously any more.

The statement "Iraq is safer than Detroit," is complete nonsense. Do they have car bombs and IEDs in Detroit?