>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.

This is a lie. Many reasons were stated before the war. You simply choose to selectively forget them.

"Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime"

This is from the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

You should take a look at this document. You'll see the many reasons for invading Iraq were laid out quite clearly by the Congress before the President signed it.

>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.

This is also a lie. A simple google search reveals that he took his sweet time to start admitting them, but he has nonetheless.
Aug 2004 : http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1292698,00.html

>
>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?

I have 2 friends that are in Iraq. They believe in the mission.

>
>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.

So is this the Bush is Hitler arguement again?

>
>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 need to be careful with your absolutes. I believe it was true in the first 2 years of the war, but I don't think it is continuing. What appears to be happening now is the opposite.

Here's an example
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/0/B140C56BFB9294FD8525716E0044E364?opendocument

There are some 135,000 Iraqi security forces now. Who is recruiting better, them or the insurgents?

Also, lets not forget that foreign fighters are not insurgents.
http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/1454/1

>
>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.

While not a boldfaced lie this is clearly misstating my response. I said the economy is booming because it is. I listed several economic indicators and said I'd be happy to provide more. When Jim responded, I decided to take a different approach and explain how some of my friends have benefitted. I do not base my opinions of the economy as a whole on my friends success, I merely sited them as additional evidence to the rest of the indicators. People tend not to believe things until they can see them for themselves.

>So the shrinking of the middle class means nothing to you.

What concerns me is the lack of significant economic education. If people were taught the basics of business, there would be many more entrapreneurial enterprises. This would lead to less of a service work force, which would raise pay scales for those still in the service industry, which would improve the economy. Any solution that doesn't start with education is a bandaid.

>Far fewer people now have medical insurance.

There are definate cost problems with health care. I'm guessing with we disagree on the solutions.

>That comment from you is one of the most selfish things I've ever, ever heard anyone say.

Which?

>
>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.

Do you even read what I write? Do you just glance at the words and respond respond based on what Kos posts is wrong with Republicans?

I will say this one more time and then not address it again.
-I have a list of reasons why I'm not happy with Bush
-The war on terror is not one of them.
-I do not base my beliefs on the opinions of others

>
>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>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.