Originally posted by caltour:

Why do Bush supporters (and Iraq war supporters) so frequently resort to name-calling? Hint: that's all they have left, since their opinion is not supported by facts.



Oh thats a good one there, liberals NEVER refer to Bush as a dumb redneck, uneducated, etc. The list of liberal Bush bashing names goes on and on. Does that mean THEIR opinion is not supported by facts! Certainly not!!! /sarcasm

Quote:


Exactly who are you arguing with? No one on this site, apparently. I have never seen anyone on this site saying our troops are terrorists or torturers. And I personally never said our troops are terrorists or torturers.



I am arguing with you, who supports the same people who call our troops the equivilance of Nazi's.

Quote:


World War II is commonly used by American historians as an example of a popular war. The vast, vast majority of Americans thought it was right, and supported it wholeheartedly. It's hard to think of many other examples of a popular war in modern times.



So a popular war is a fluke, but you use it as an example of why Iraq is wrong? Seems like shaky ground to stand on, using the fluke to back your argument...

Quote:


Oh, god. We've covered this time and again.

Bush could have cooperated with the UN, and shared the burden of ousting Saddam with the rest of the free world, just like Clinton did in Kosovo, and his father did in Desert Storm.



Yeah the UN was doing such a good job during your hero, Clinton's administration. Tell me how we could have supported the UN better, maybe throw a couple hundred billion more dollars to them to screw up the use of?

Quote:



I am amazed that you still make this "last resort" argument. Most Americans (and most of the rest of the world) don't believe it. They think we could have contained any threat posed by Saddam in a number of other ways. Bush's case for war is widely considered to be an almost complete sham.



Widely considered a sham huh? I love how your arguments almost always fall back on your taking your opinion and making it seem to be the majority's opinion. And I also couldn't care less what the rest of the world thought. They aren't the ones that lost 3000+ on 9/11, of course they couldn't care less. Or maybe you were referring to the countries making money off of Saddam being in power? YOU consider the war to be a sham, not the majority.

Quote:


Focus: we're talking about what's the best national policy re: Iraq today. We are not talking about the actions of some dirty-ass stoned hippies 35 years ago.


This comming from the same person that told me I should use WWII as my litmus test of a popular war...

Quote:


Prove it. Show us exactly what sources and information you are relying on in making this claim.



Sources??? Like what, tell me what you want to see here and I will try to find it for you. How about the fact that we have a murdering dictator out of power and are currently promoting the ideas of freedom and democracy to a place that was in the equivilant of the friggin ice age in terms of development. Or how about us capturing terrorists and would be terrorists along with many top people from terrorist organizations. How many coordinated attacks have there been since 9/11. You might be able to make the argument of London, but as much as a tragedy that was, it was NOTHING compared to what they could have done had they been as powerful and coordinated and rich as they were when 9/11 took place.

Quote:

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Get a clue please, your ignorance is just spewing from every hole in your body, please find something to plug them up already.


Nice. Very nice.



Thank you.




"Moore has also accused the American people of being the stupidest, most naive people on the face of the Earth. And after last weekend, he's got the box office numbers to prove it!"