Wow. I'd actually never considered the war from that angle. That's a phenomenal article.

And Ganga, that's not what the author said at all. He never said that this war was against the Muslims, he said it was against Muslim terrorists, and he said it numerous times. The fact is, he's spot-on as to the intentions of Muslim terrorism. Religious zealotry is an extremely powerful motivation for acts of violence, and that's exactly what these terrorists are utilizing.

I'm still pretty on-the-fence in regards to the war. The fact is, I agree completely that this war needs to be fought and that this country needs to protect itself. What I disagree with is how the situation was handled. Flat-out lying to the public, ambiguously allowing the public to form it's own pre-concieved notions and insulting our ally countries in order to get a jump-start on this war was a foolishly dunderheaded move. I agree that the war needs to be fought, but not under George Bush's leadership. The fact is, this war will be fought, but it needs to be done under the leadership of a more level-headed and less trigger-happy individual. This war needs to be fought under the leadership of a man who has not already royally fucked up the process. Namely John Kerry.

I don't know shit about Kerry's political views. All I know is that by default, he is the lesser of two evils and therefore will get my vote come election time.