Quote:
And Meadros, I pity you
While I doubt your sincerity, I am looking for dialogue, not pity.
Quote:
and your lopsided view of things. Try to be more open-minded and look at what the war has accomplished also, instead of just what it has cost.
You know, sometimes I wonder if Bush is really an idiot savant and he is on the right track with his foriegn policy. Maybe it is good to blitzkreig 3rd world nations who have bad leaders. Maybe we can spread democrocy to these places through force, alone and against the will of a complacent world. But then the administration does things so cynical as hypocrytical like blaming Iraq for 9/11 while protecting the Saudi's Monarchy (who were the real force behind 9/11 and despots in their own rights).
So, in my heart I believe that this war was wrong regardless of the reasons given before the war and since, despite the costs or benefits.
Quote:
Bush has done the best job that he can in office so far, and I think he has done well so far.
I agree, Bush is inept and a figurehead. He has done very well for himself in that role.
Quote:
Do you think that you could have done things any better?
That is beside the point. A better question is "Do you think a democrat could do better?"
The answer is "Depends". Many weak dems supported this tragic comedy. But like Smash said, which candidate will do the least damage? I think Bush loses in this aspect to any of the four democrats who are seriously challenging him.
Quote:
Oh, and only 2 of your "facts on the war on terror" actually relate to the war on terror. /smack
It is the administration that keeps insisting that the Iraq War has a something to do with the war on terror.
I hope that war goes better than the war on drugs and the war on poverty, but I seriously doubt it. Since it is pretty impossible to have a war on ideas it makes sense that the administration instead picks a handy scapegoat so we can fight the kind of war our military is built for.
Edit: fixed broken quote bracket
Edited, Mon Jan 26 15:08:36 2004 by Meadros