The only place it can go is towards an admission, but people can decide for themselves. And I'm pretty sure I know what they'll decide if no explanation as to the matching IP addresses is offered.


It doesn't add up to me because the only complaint that you're offering is that our execution of the invasion has been poorly managed. But that complaint can't have existed before we moved in; yet you opposed the war then, too, didn't you? But if you wanted Saddam gone, and he wasn't giving himself up, then why did you first oppose moving in?


No problem.


This is just silly, to me. It's not as if our cause would suddenly become more righteous if Iraq were more powerful. It's not right or wrong based on the strength of the enemy. We shouldn't be foolishly taking on countries that can kill vast numbers of our civilians if we don't have to. But if we see a way to remove a dictator heading down that road BEFORE he has the ability to do that to us, it's sensible to take the initiative. You make it sound cowardly, as if America were a bully picking fights, rather than a body of individuals seeking to protect its citizens.


You can believe that if you wish, but you don't know that, and I'm quite convinced that you can't produce much in the way of evidence for it. I don't know what's inside Bush's head, and neither do you. The difference between us, then, is that I'm not pretending to. I'm trying to judge the situation based on what we know to be true, and what is likely to be true. I think this is a far better way of deciding which stance to take than playing guessing games with a politician's motivations, which are probably not black-and-white anyway.


No, not "we won't stop them anymore," just "we can't stop them any way we want." We're not ignoring North Korea; we simply have the common sense to realize that you don't knock down the door if the guy's got a hostage. If a maniac is wielding a gun, you take him down. If he's got it pointed at an innocent bystander, you have no choice but to try to talk him out of it. I find it hard to believe we're even arguing about this; are you suggesting that we invade a country with nuclear weaponry?


Freedom is not a set of dinosaur bones; it doesn't have to be "discovered." Freedom is a universal concept; do you think many Iraqis were not aware of such a concept? Do you think many of them did not desire it? Many people desire freedom, but do not have the means or ability to obtain it.

Think of the revolutionary war, if you want a historical parallel: we had help from the French in fighting the British. Granted, our role with the Iraqis is more significant, but the concept is the same. Don't you find it at all cold-hearted (as well as perhaps unrealistic) to advocate that no country is worthy of assistance in obtaining a modicum of liberty?


Likewise. Thank you.