Technically and Constitutionally, the president works for me and for every other American citizen since we pay his salary. Plus, the Congress, which at one time represented the People of this country, has to answer to the constituency for whatever is happening in the country. Therefore, what the President and the Congress do in my name matters to me and I am entitled to some degree of oversight. Maybe it works differently for you, but my being lied to by anyone especially the government does not sit well with me. If Bush or anyone else is going to market a specific system and seek my approval, there should be some element of truth to what he says. It works the same way with major events happening in the U.S., such as Watergate, IranContra, 9/11, the Iraq War, or anything like that. The fact that the government so easily and so readily lies to our faces should tell me that we should not take everything the government says at face value. Lastly, I find your M.A.D. logic as curious as it is worrisome. You are saying that the way to end the risk of a nuclear annihilation of mankind by making sure that any nuclear missiles fired will be shot down before they reach the target. From 1972 until recently, the idea was the best way to not have a war was to make sure the missiles were never launched. Given a choice, I prefer the latter since it is safer and saner. DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

If the missile system was for what Bush claims, then Bush wouldn't have to lie and claim that it is to protect Europe from Iranian and North Korean nuclear ICBMs that Iran certainly and North Korea more than likely do not have. Let's also not forget that the missile system barely functions as designed, so the $110 Billion that has already been spent on the program is a false hope at best. Plus, the character of the system changes when the character of the government using it changes. If the missile system goes into place and Bush (or the other warmonger, McCain) use the belief that the system will prevent Russian ICBM's from acting as a reasonable deterrent to American/Western nuclear strikes, then the nuclear option looks more favorable and the risk of a very real hot war becomes possible. The system has not been proven to work and it only stops (or purports to stop) ICBMs. Cruise missiles will get through. Countermeasures will certainly defeat it. Therefore, it is risking much and gaining little. DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

If Georgia had been a member of NATO, Russia certainly would not have invaded the country, but if so, the response would have been much stronger. And if they think that threatening (or eventually attacking) Poland will help their cause, they are sorely mistaken. What I have yet to figure out is, if Russia truly has no intention of invading any Eastern European nations or launching any IBM attacks against them, why are they so agitated by a defensive weapons system? And why would they care about who joins NATO? *If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

lmorovan... NATO is a fairly solid alliance for most of Europe and some surrounding nations, as well as for the U.S. and Canada. At the time of its formation, NATO was primarily established to defend European countries against military conquest like that of the recent Nazi regime. It was also part of a defense strategy against the up-and-coming Soviet states. At the core of the NATO alliance was a key feature in Article V that made NATO quite formidable against potential threats: "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all..." What constitutes Europe or the "North Atlantic area" (referred to later in the article) is not precisely defined. But considering the fact that Turkey joined NATO in 1952, it must be assumed that the areas around Turkey fall into the regions in question. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - to form a defense alliance with a variety of nations stretched beyond our immediate borders or the borders of Western Europe. Russia has never been interested in joining the NATO alliance...but then again, the organization was formed partly to protect Europe from Soviet military conquest. Since the end of the Cold War, Russia has worked with NATO as a nation in the Partnership for Peace program. But this recent dispute with Georgia will certainly impact that involvement. As long as Russia continues to make threats to nations like Poland and invades countries like Georgia, they certainly should not be extended any special privileges or be asked to partner with NATO for collective security operations and training exercises. *If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.