The war was at the behest of the neocons. There were many who argued in the beginning that the neocon logic was flawed. I don't know if it was a neocon or just Rumsfeld philosophy, but the goal of fighting a war there with a small amount of troops was a major, major flaw from the get go.

I was against the war from the beginning because I believed the arguments against. And the disenters have been proven true.

At minimum, the attacks against US forces is getting stronger and stronger. Al Queda is able to test new tactics against our troops that they can use anywhere in the world.

I also didn't like Bush wanting to go unilaterally. It is a symptom of a much larger problem with the policies of the current administration. Many countries in the world are not happy with our governments policies and are willing to deal with others because of it.

The US is loosing a hold on the "most dominant" nation as other's get in line to assume the position.

>>If you're being serious (which I suppose you are), why do you support a war started by an adminstration that has done all it can to cater to these lunatics?
>
>I support the war because I believe it was the right thing to do. It sounds like you believe the war was started at the behest of the fundamentalists.