[I would like to weigh in seriously on the issue of supporting the troops by opposing the war. I think this approach leads to more dead troops and/or a US withdrawl which results in throwing away the sacrifices of those were killed or wounded. I will start of with a simple premise, no country in the world can defeat the US on the battlefield. The only way we can lose is because we decide to QUIT. Since Viet Nam the goal of every enemy we have encountered was based on convincing the left in this country to undermine the War internally until the politicans decide to quit, as a result of public & media pressure. In his memoirs General Giap was very explicit in saying that the media and Anti War movement was their key to victory He stated that they NV knew they couldn't win. Their strategy was to hang on until the US decided to quit. The same tatic worked in Somolia, We went in without the committment to do what it took to win. We got punched in the nose and quit. Indeed OBL looked at the US weakness in Somolia (and our tepid response to Al Queda attacks on the US around the world) as proof that if he hit us hard we wouldn't have the stomach for it and we would QUIT. Al Queda and the Baathist are basing their hopes on the same premise, it they make it painful, the US won't have the stomach to follow through and win, that internal dissension will cause us to quit. When Kerry calls for a predetermined date for withdrawl he is telling the enemy that if we can hang on until ____ the American will quit and we can win. This encourages resistanence, and more determined resistanence to out troops. If we commit troops to war, play to win and argue after you win if you did it the right. If we wre to leave Iraq it would be a huge boosr to Al Queda, they would have volunteers than they could handle. There would be more terrorism not less. Winning brings peace not appeasement. If you want a quicker end to the war and fewer US casualities, let the neemy know that cannot win, give them no hope of victory. I am not saying that all who oppose the war are not patriotic (although sime hate the US more than the terorist), I am saying that they are naive and stupid. They are causing more casualties not less. I have owndered what would have happened if Gore had been President? Would we have gone to the UN and have a commission to try to understand why the terrorist hate us (Gore actually suggested we try to understand the terrorist after 9-11)? How many more times would we have been attacked since 9-11 if we hadn't responded forcefully? So when on your high horse about 'caring' about the troops consider the unintended consequences of your actions.