snood wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:snood wrote:No, Brandon - I don't think that was her oh-so-grown-up-point, at all. I think it was that the pResident thinks and speaks in all-or-nothing, black-or-white, us-vs-them, childlike, simplistic terms.
Well, when someone kidnaps planes loaded with innocents, cuts the stewardesses' throats, and runs the planes through city skyscrapers killing thousands, personally I don't think it is simplistic to call them evil doers. In fact it is accurate. Such a situation actually is fairly black and white and would appropriately be described as "us-vs-them." The truth is that his descriptions are congruent and appropriate to the situation, unlike those of your camp who are simply living in a dream world. Would you care to go for the million dollar stupidity prize and tell me that there's no such thing as evil?
Naw, too many who think like you have the natural advantage on winning that particular prize. Yes, Brandon, there's evil in the world. But if my next door neighbor punches me in the nose I'll retaliate in kind to
him, I won't go beat up my across the street neighbor on the outside chance he's
thinking of doing the same.
Quite correct. However, not intending to refer to Iraq, but just theoretically, it's not as simple as you paint it. if the "chance" you speak of is based on evidence, and it is murder, not a punch in the nose, it would be unreasonable not to at least investigate your neighbor.
snood wrote:That's the morass your president backed us into on the pretense of chasing "evildoers". Of course, that rationalization has morphed since, from "connections with 9/11" into "preventing the proliferation of WMDs" into "spreading freedom", but that's another kind of stupidity.
Invading Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, Bush never said that Hussein was a participant in 9/11, and, although Hussein actually is an evildoer, our invasion of Iraq was to resolve the WMD question, a fact that Bush repeated over, and over, and over. It was very nice to be able to liberate a hideously oppressed and abused people while in the neighborhood, but the reason why it was necessary to invade pertains only to WMD, and invasion was, indeed necessary. As for it being a morass, other wars have lasted longer and produced more casualties. You sound like you're saying that the fact that the war in Iraq is difficult demonstrates that it's wrong, which is a a philosphy that would have kept us out of a lot of wars history now judges to have been crucial.
snood wrote:Your president has lots of different kinds - and his blind followers even more.
I believe what I believe and Bush believes what he believes. I was for the invasion of Iraq a very long time before Bush came on the scene.