If this guy is half as much a liberal as he claims he is, it takes a lot of balls to say this stuff.

I have never hoped for the war to go bad. I didn't approve of the war because Iraq wasn't a threat to us and I think that is the test that should determine when we go to war, but I have never hoped for a higher body count and I have rooted both for the Iraqi football team and for the election to go off without bloodshed.

I don't believe we can do good by breaking the law.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

"I didn't approve of the war because Iraq wasn't a threat to us and I think that is the test that should determine when we go to war....."

Yet another hypocritical and inconstent statement.....considering you have stated you supported what Clinton did in bombing Yugoslavia. (the Kosovo war). Yugoslavia wasn't a threat to us.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

On average, New Yorkers are smarter than the average American. Its a city, and cities, by default have much more intelligent citizens the the suburbs and rural places. Thats because the intelligent people mvoe INTO the cities. And New York is THE city of the US.

Statistics show that the average liberal is smarter than the average conservative. Statistics show the average citizen of blue states has an average IQ that is higher, is better educated, is better traveled, is more well-read, and knows more of the facts. I've seen all these statistics FROM this forum over the last year. The most interesting statistics that showed IQ. EVERY single blue state was higher than EVERY red state. You could say the IQ is bull, but it cant be a coincidence that they happened to be grouped completely with their own voting color. Plus you guys still think Saddam had WMDs, lol.

He misses the whole point. Liberals were against the war because Bush invaded because he claimed it was a threat. We know it wasnt a threat. Of course we hope it succeeds. But, even if it does succeed and becomes a thriving democracy that does not prove us wrong. Bush (if you remember) did not originally go into Iraq out of the goodwill of his heart. he wwent because he said it was a threat. Congress, no matter how many Bush quotes you give me, would never have approved going if Bush ahd not mentioned the threat or WMDs. Even if it is a success, we were and still are right. Iraq was never a threat. its just that people have a tendency to forget the past and what happened at the moment of the decision making. I hope the Iraqi people are better off, but we did not invade to help them. We invaded to get rid of a threat. There was no threat, thus no matter what happens Bush was wrong in going in. Especially since how you Bush lovers LOVE to talk about how great a democracy will be for everyone and how freedom is on the march, but this only started to be said by conservatives after they realized there was no threat and that the entire precedent for going into Iraq was false.

Oh my God, what is wrong with you and why is it so hard for you to keep up? I have said, over and over and over and over and over and over and over that I DO SUPPORT helping oppressed people IF (1) the help is legal, and (2) the US doesn't bear almost all the costs. I have said again and again that IF Bush had gone into the UN to make a speech where he asked for the member states to agree to help all oppressed people, I would support that decision. But, we don't want to save all oppressed people. We don't seem to care about the people of Tibet, we didn't care about the Liberians, and we sure don't care about the people of Sudan. I DO NOT support using American lives and American tax dollars to go around the world liberating people especially when doing so is ILLEGAL.

If you want me to support military action, you need to show me (1) that the target is a threat to us, OR (2) that we are helping oppressed people and we are not bearing all the costs. Number 2 is especially important when we are going to help people who sit on valuable natural resources while we ignore the pleas of people not so fortunate.

Kosovo was number 2. We helped the people of Kosovo as part of NATO. We didn't bear the full costs of helping them.

Really, calling me a hypocrite when it is just that you don't understand is getting REALLY old.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

Clinton at least was upfront in saying we were going in to stop genocide, etc. Why did Congress authorize the president to go to war? Because of the hullabaloo he and the administration gave about WMDs, mobile weapons labs, and the rest.

Let me say this as clearly as I can: THE PRESIDENT'S NUMBER ONE STATED REASON FOR GOING TO WAR WAS BECAUSE IRAQ WAS SUPPOSEDLY A HUGE THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY.

All of this feel-good saving the Iraqi people stuff came AFTER the WMD story fell through.

__________________
Proudly a "South Park Republican"

You're right, Sadistic-Savior. It is killing them.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

Well, you do keep changing the goalposts, don't ya? Now, you've added yet another reason that meets your qualifications: that we don't bear all the costs. First it had to be UN sanctioned....then it had to be ONLY if we were attacked first....then it was ONLY if they were a threat....and NOW it's "if we don't bear all the costs." What reason will be added next???

Yugoslavia was 1) not UN sanctioned....2) not a threat to the U.S.......
3) didn't attack us first......and 4) we bore MOST of the cost.

Iraq has had more countries involved than Yugoslavia had. They were a threat to not only us, but other countries.... AND we've had NATO involvement. Not to mention they lost one war to us and the terms of losing that war said they MUST comply with all the terms of the Resolution. Iraq did not do so.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

And as you said.....Clinton's Number 1 reason for bombing Yugoslavia was to stop genocide. And we found out later there was no state-sponsored genocide going on. And not the mass graves they told us would be there either. Both those things he told us in a speech to get us to back bombing them. So....did he lie....or was he simply mistaken?

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Then why do cities have such high drop out rates compared to suburbs?There's no doubt they believe they are smarter.In your dreams.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.