Personally I think the European Union is attack against the United States ability to have a stronger economy in itself.

And frankly, the majority of the countries that dont' support us or were harmed by our decision to go into Iraq, really havn't been good allies to begin with. They've been there because they wanted our protection, not because they've ever really done anything for us.

Admittingly, Bush can be a little hard-lined on foriegn policy, but when it comes to terrorism and telling countries that we wont stand for their support of it, or threats to our national security, we need someone who is hard-lined. In my opinion that's better than a man who is willing to reopen dialog with a country that has been a supporter of terrorism for at least the past 20 years, a country that is about to collapse from within' itself -- without our military helping it out (like we had to do in Iraq) -- which will then bring a new and strong ally in the middle east, to the US. If they don't collapse, we wont have that and the middle east "reform" will take much longer, and be much bloodier.

Again, I'm torn on the Iraq issue. I support it now, in the beginning I didn't, and in the future I may not. So I'm not trying to turn this into another Iraq debate. I think I need more time, a year or two more, to decide if it was the right thing to do or not.