Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
CAN WE NOT LET THIS MORON'S THREAD DIE????


It looks like I've struck a chord with you. Whenever someone makes a point that causes me to get upset (i.e. when I want to call them names and shut down the discussion), I always ask myself why I am feeling so defensive. I usually find that:

1) Their point addresses one of my most cherished assumptions and biases, and

2) I perceive the logical and factual support for my argument to be weaker than the support for theirs.

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Bush lied to the Americans about his reasons for going to war (Even though EVERYONE giving him intel both inside this country and abroad was saying there was good cause and that the other info was probably right)


Every country was saying their was good cause for the war? How can you keep parroting this conclusion without even examining the basis for it? I said earlier in this thread that no country had intel that genuinely provided "good cause" for the war, and you never provided any proof (or any reasoned argument) to the contrary.

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Bush did it to avenge his daddy not getting Saddam the first time (Even though Bush Sr. STATED that he was NOT going to roll into Baghdad and that his ONLY mission was to liberate Kuwait)



I was referring to the attempted assassination of Bush Sr. in Kuwait in the early 90's (after Gulf War I). If you need more info about it, maybe someone will dig up an old news article about it.