MisterMike,
If you believe that going to war was the right thing, that's fine. You are definatily entitled to your opinions, which is why america is so great.
I am having trouble with a few things though.
The only point I've cared to chime in on over the last few posts is about the media bias. It is really is quite evident. Your question about the definition of a liberal was directed to someone else form what I can tell. Seems funny that you shout so much you don't know who your shouting at.
My media claims are not predicated on anything.
On the "Media Bias" issue, many conservative personalities and celebraties have talked about the "Liberal Media Bias." A lot of this could be based on individual interpratation; a "conservative" hears something from the media he dislikes, so the media is "liberal" to them, or a "Liberal" hears something from the media he dislikes, so the media is "conservative" for him.
Point is, opinions are like bellybuttons, but that doesn't mean that they are true.
Check out the 1st link in my previous post regarding the "Liberal Media" myth. That is actual evidence that supports the idea that the media is actually conservative much more than liberal.
Quite likely? WOW. That'll make the victims of 9/11 and the rest of us feel better.
This is a major falicy, usually spread by those who don't want anyone to question the war, so they try to appeal to our emotional side by bringing up a tragidy. WMD and 9-11 terrorists are 2 seperate groups and 2 seperate issues. Not only is it "quite likely" that there were no more WMD in Iraq, but our administration told us and the rest of the world that they had proof that Irag had WMD eyond resonable doubt, and enough to justify going to war. Without finding WMD, this is Proof that the administration lied. None of this has to do with the victims of 9-11. If anything, I think the victims would have rather seen more done to prevent terrorism, to continue after Al Queda, and to have found Bin Laden, if you ask me. The war in Irag has little to do with that, though.
We don't need them to. PERIOD
The problem I see is that this creates a hypocracy. One of the reasons for going to War against Iraq is they broke UN resolutions and agreements. So, we break UN agreements to go to war over it. How is it we can break UN agreements to punish someone for breaking UN agreements? Should the UN be able to go after us for breaking UN agreements? THis, I see, is a major problem, and not a good reason for war. It makes us look retarded.
Here is what I think regarding those who support Bush and the war at this point. Most people who are supporters basically believe that Saddam is a bad guy, so for whatever reason it was we went to war in the 1st place, the results are good because we are bringing an evil man to justice.
I can appreciate this arguement, and I am glad that he is not in power, and that he has been captured. However, to me this doesn't justify the amount of $$, resources, and problems we have caused ourselves by going in unilaterally. We may have been able to accomplish beating Iraq on our own, but only to the detriment of our own money, resources, and troops. All this just to out a "bad guy". We could have accomplished the same task, in time, but with the rest of the world supporting it. Instead, we have hurt our deplomacy with the world. We can't afford to out all the evil dictators in the world. What we can do is stop supporting "evil dictators" when it fits our agenda in the short run; if anything 9-11 should have taught us, this is the lesson we should have learned. Yet, we haven't. And this worries me.
