I guess you missed the "You take away what you bring" part. I assure you I'm not putting those out as irrefutable facts. I just wanted to illustrate that Cam's overly negative interpretation of events that comes from his perspective could just as easily be an overly positive interpretation when you don't bring so much baggage.

How 'bout we all stop being such bashers and let's see how it comes out? As I posted in an early war thread--you have to be some sort of sociopath to actually hope this ends badly. :(

People did not "work on absolute proof" or "a preponderance of evidence" in this case. It is not a civil lawsuit over a "slip and fall" accident. People assumed that their leaders were telling them the truth when they presented their case for invading Iraq. A much greater % of the American public than voted for Bush backed him on this war, (after all, it was over 50%), they believed him, Powell and Rumsfeld. It cracks me up that people on the internet like you are already forgiving them for lying when they haven't even admitted it yet! :D

Using your "hat hook" reasoning, many countries are now free to invade others w/o international approval, if they have transgressed in the past. We are surely on several hit lists.

"What will be the next complaint"?

I don't know, impeachment? Isn't that what they do to Presidents who lie to congress and the American people? If I was the parent of one of those dead Marines or Soldiers, I'd want his lying, coke snorting, draft avoiding ass on a platter. :cool:

Uhmm, you mean like the "international approval" Saddam had going in to Kuwait?

Considering the US had troops from the UK & AU helping them, this war does have "international approval."
You act as if every past war had as much "international approval" as Bush41 got in 1991 . . and that Bush43 somehow broke a chain.

It is interesting, that many liberals DON'T have such blazing hatred for Bush (that they can't see straight).

That said, to hear Daschle speak well of Bush, really surprises me.
LINK to quote . .then again, wasn't it Daschle who was one of the guys that got an Anthrax attack?

I suppose when it comes to "What the Liberals don't get" the fact that we in the US have been attacked numerous times, is the critical point of what the "hold-out liberals" don't get.
(not enough proof, I suppose :rolleyes: )

Wow, the truth in bold, huh? Like you get it from every source except the evil administration? I can't believe the rabid hatred that comes out in your posts. Are you really that miserable? Is there an ulcer named George Bush eating you up inside--keeping you awake praying for the day that right-thinking Americans see the truth and put him in jail forever? :D

Wow, talk about liberal application of vitriol (pun intended). What exactly do you think you're going to accomplish, other than alienating people?

Further, what does any of this debate accomplish?

Bored now.

I find it quite interesting that many libs are looking for the "real" story with any conservative administration. If they can't find any dirt, they'll make some. The complaints about the embedded reporters really frost me too. Last time they complained that they weren't able to get the "dirt" firsthand, so the Pentagon put them right in there where the bullets were flying. Think they would be happy that they would be able to get the "dirt"? They now complain that they were too close to the action and couldn't get the big picture (available at hq, where they weren't happy the last time.) No, the embeds reported what they saw within the limits of operational security. Too bad for the libs they didn't get any Mi Lai massacres, only happy people pulling down statues and waving flowers. Now they are concentrating on a few radical demonstrators. What about the "rest of the story"? What about the rest of the population wanting to get on with life and get the radicals out of the way?

So at this point, the libs have done a great job showing just what whack job, quasi communists, and useful idiots (ask I. L. Lenin) that they really are.

Well I hope that my posts have encouraged Denis and Cam to at least consider that there are other alternatives to the foundation of their argument. And, if they're willing to make that jump, they might understand that many well-educated people with a perfectly adequate sense of right and wrong can look at the exact same thing they look at, yet come away with very different conclusions.

Or, they might go away muttering, "I'm right, they're wrong and that's all there is to it!" :D

The phrase, "the end justifies the means" has a bad rap, but sometimes you have to wait and see how things end up. How the administration handles Iraq over the next year will absolutely define whether this whole project will be viewed as a bold visionary move that redefined the world, or as a disgraced bonehead meddling way out of his depth.

Well, Jon, so far, in the realm of tangible reasons for going to war with Iraq, which were to rid the country of WMD, that hasn't panned out very well.

I forsee at least a year of occupation if the US is going to continue its vain search for WMD that so far have not come up. I wonder if they're even searching anymore, but are instead hopeful that aspect of the conflict might just blow over.

As is, no one really cares about the war now. The fireworks are over, troops are going home, the palaces have been looted. It's dead air there.

Now people are into Laci Peterson's murder, SARS, and NBA Playoffs.

We have the attention span of a public that a government like ours adores - we forget everything in about a week.

Now that's cynical! . ..or is it? Arrgh, I tell anymore. ;)

dd, if our goal was to rid the country of WMD, AND non are to be found, then, I would say, our plan HAS panned-out well.
. . unless of course they all just got moved to IRAN :eek:

Which, unfortunately, is usually what happens with everyone except fence-sitters. And usually the fence-sitters do not have enough emotional capital invested in the issue to want to join in the debate.

Did I just say "emotional capital"? Geez.

Basically these threads exist purely for the purpose of venting and getting pissed off. Not that I've been helping; just an observation. Who among us has the ability or clout to affect anything that's been going on? Those of us who do are either too busy to read this or doing their job overseas.

Well, we can start by not driving our cars? But I'm not willing to give that up.

Are you?

Actually, I've gone from having a 19 mpg (max) daily driver to a 24-27 mpg daily driver that is officially a low emissions vehicle (LEV). The Porsche is now just a weekend pleasure driver.

And I'm on the lookout for a motorcycle which could get 150% that mileage.

In 1-2 years my wife will replace her Tacoma with a Prius.

That's excellent, I respect you for this. I am thinking more about ways to burn less fuel, I think that doing this fights terrorism, (or at least its main $$ source), and energy companies don't deserve to get any richer, IMO.

As to my being miserable, RallyJon? Hardly the case. I'm one of the happiest people I know. I enjoy a heated political discussion from time to time, maybe this isn't the place to do it, but I just got back from Monterey where I hung out w/ the coolest bunch of Porsche nuts on the planet and rode in some incredible cars. Check my picture post on the regular 911 board if you want.

And I do not really hate Bush, after more calm thought I just believe that he is in way over his head and being manipulated by Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfwitz, etc., etc..... :cool:

"Actually, I've gone from having a 19 mpg (max) daily driver to a 24-27 mpg daily driver that is officially a low emissions vehicle (LEV)."

Just wanted to chime in and say that the new GT3 is officially a low-emissions vehicle. Cool, huh?

Too much stuff to even try and reply to. Denis and I clearly have a completely different outlook(s) on this stuff to you guys. RallyJon - I do see another side to this argument. I am just not willing to accept "the end justifies the means". I never have been and my own moral code means I never really will.

I just wanted to illustrate that Cam's overly negative interpretation of events that comes from his perspective could just as easily be an overly positive interpretation when you don't bring so much baggage.

Other than the aforementioned moral code, what baggage do I actually bring? I am the least affected (living at the bottom of the world), and potentially therefore most objective, contributor to this discussion (geeez, that sounds pompous and even I don't believe it, but I'm trying to illustrate the point that what you wrote is pretty silly). The impact of SARS on tourism is having a greater affect on my country than the war.

And whats more, I neither consider myself what you would term a liberal or a conservative - rather somewhere in between. Before you ask, that isn't fence sitting.