Before the war

The people who still support the war on the grounds of WMDs that are grasping at straws to justify their beliefs do so to allay their fears of being made chumps by this administration upon which they've laid their trust and support.

WMDs, or the threat thereof was a real reason for concern, but given the truth about the actual threat, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was ridiculously imprudent based on that rationale.

The administration inflated and hyperbolized the actual threat of WMD to strike fear into the hearts of an American public that was already terrorized and paranoid because of the 9/11 attacks. The administration thus further terrorized the American public to manipulate its opinion of the war it had been planning since before then.

The "budding connections" between Iraq and al-Qaeda were, for all practical purposes as far as we can tell, something along the lines of the US' connections with al-Qaeda, that of espionage. And so, the US invaded and occupied a country that had nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism aside from espionage, and retains its comfy relations with a country that is Islamic fundamentalist, Saudi Arabia. Cerebrally, where's the logic in this rationale?

The sense of revenge for 9/11 was absolutely not unexpected because the administration conflated the 9/11 attacks with Iraq and its plans of invasion and occupation thereof when it took great pains to imply that the latter had something directly to do with the former. 9/11 was always mentioned whenever the administration talked about its plans for war against Iraq. The administrations conflation of the two was so effective that some of the undying war supporters to this day still believe that Iraq had something directly to do with 9/11.

The administration explained much of its reasons for its invasion and occupation of Iraq. Verily, it even named the operation "Iraqi Freedom" instead of "Iraqi WMD Begone" or some such referential title to WMD. But, cerebrally, the rationales that the administration trumpeted, aside from that of WMD, are contradictory. On the one hand the administration claimed altruism for a beleaguered Iraqi populace. On the other the administration claimed the self-serving reason of making Iraq the front in its war on terror so that the US wouldn't have to be that front. To add to this is the sense of revenge that the administration instilled in the American public. These are diametrically opposed rationales for the war. It's interesting how the administration and a large part of the American public that still supports this war hold these opposite rationales simultaneously in their minds. It's illustratively epitomic of doublethink.

I think the American public would still have supported a war had revenge for 9/11 been the main rationale, along with the one of making Iraq the front line in the US' war on terror, the general Iraqi welfare be damned.

I "dent" like being lied to either Lucy.

Let me see, you think I'm lying to you.

Nope...don't really care.

By the way, when you express an inane opinion, as you so often do, I don't think you're lying to me, for, after all, lying requires a level of cunning beyond that possessed by a human lemming.

Becoming?

I defy your silly labels.

Cynic and Romantic in one is Finn.

Neo-Conservative and Real Politko in one is Finn.

I would have thought, however, that a post-modernist such as yourself could appreciate the paradox of Finn since we know you abhor the absolute.

Clever.

I like that.

You are glib if nothing else blatham.

Thankyou.

Of course, such terms are entirely relative. Whatever my 'cleverness quotient' might be, it's likely only notable in relationship to the fellow making that evaluation.

And...my mother can beat up your father any old day.

That might be a clever comment if glib meant clever.

Since my Dad lies mouldering in the grave, I have no doubt that your Mater with all her Canadian ruggedness can beat up my Old Man (or at least what's left of him) .

However (pronounced Hievah if one has the honor of living in the South), considering that the classic mother-figure of a homosexual is an overbearing and aggressive harpy, I'm not going to bet that your Mom cannot beat up anyone in my family.

I find that in most discussions, individuals tend to select quotes and references to support their opinions. After all, it takes a great degree of self-discipline to use sources which may disprove your original point.

To me, some of the results of our activities would cause me to reexamine the thinking and decision-making of the present administration:
...I believed we have stained or damaged our working relations with our allies.
...There is reason to believe that our involvement in Iraq actually lead to a strengthing (sp) of the insurgency membership.
...American's are usually willing to suffer and die for that in which they believe. This situation is not that clear. In WWII we and our allies were attacked; in this situation, we attacked. And in doing so, declared that any country who feels threatened by another country should strike first.