Well I thought I wouldn't reply anymore. But your last couple posts got too under my skin.

First, a war such as WWII was obviously fought for the right reasons. This war is not. If this was truly a war fought for democracy it would have been fought much, much differently. I was listening to an interview with the ex-general who wrote that "Cobra..." book that is out now. He made the comment that they wanted to fight the war with as few as troops as possible because they were only interested in toppling Saddam.

The American people would never have agreed to a war in Iraq under the pretext of establishing a democracy there. Bush has constantly changed his message on the war. The only constant is never admitting any mistakes. I believe the reason for that is that political consultants have stated that once mistakes were admitted about the Vietnam war, people started turning against the idea of the war.

Question for you, do you want to go to the house down the street to explain to the family that their son is coming home with body parts missing or not coming home at all because he's fighting to establish a democracy?

In case you haven't noticed people such as Dragan, who've lived behind the Iron Curtain, are very much against our current govt. They've all seen this before. And the outcome is usually not pretty. They've heard the rhetoric before.

You said my comment about us creating insurgents was false. All those people who've visited there are returned saying that, or the ex-military people who've said as much, or the general interviewed in the New Yorker article, these people are all lying to me? Why?

You say the economy is going gangbusters based on some people you know who have greatly improved their economic outlook in the last couple years. So the shrinking of the middle class means nothing to you. Far fewer people now have medical insurance. That comment from you is one of the most selfish things I've ever, ever heard anyone say.

Bush ratings down to 29% today. I see you as part of the 1% when his approval gets down that low. I'm still trying to understand why. Keep the blinders on if it helps to make you happy.


>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I also believe that freedom is a cause worth pursuing for the world. Through diplomacy, revolution and war if necessary. This world will be much better off once all its people are free.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Without getting into the merits of one ideology/religion compared to the other........
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You do realize that if you substitute "Islam" for "freedom" you have the exact attitude held by Islamic terrorists?
>>>>>
>>>>>You do realize that "radical islam" and "freedom" are polar opposites?
>>>>
>>>>duh................I never thought of that.
>>>>
>>>>So it's okay for you to do/support all the things they do because you are on the correct side of the arguement. Funny, that's exactly what they say.
>>>
>>>OK let's play the substitution game...
>>>I suppose my statement means nothing because you can substitute any of the following and get the same attitude held by others.
>>>
>>>natzism
>>>slavery
>>>white power
>>>nambla
>>>
>>>In answer to your question. Yes. I am on the correct side of the arguement. What is so objectionable about the pursuit of freedom for all?
>>
>>There's nothing objectionable about the pursuit of freedom for all. It's the methodology I object to. You can't condem somebody for using a specific method to obtain their goal and then support using the same tactics to support your goals.
>>
>>If you feel it's evil for the Islamist to start/support a revolution in (pick a non-Islamic country) for the purpose of installing an Islamic regime then it's evil for the US the right to start/support a revolution in (pick an Islamic country) for the purpose of installing a democracy.
>
>I could not disagree more. I do not believe in the moral equilivence of freedom and radical islam. They are diametric opposits in terms of benefit to humanity. I will support revolution for freedom while being against fundamental Islamic revolution.