Spicy McHaggis

That's the kind of response I was expecting. I'll go back to ignoring you now. Thank you CE! You've been... well, you've just been. I'm out of here!

1. http://www.taxpayersnetwork.org/DesktopDef...&TabId=3404 2. I have NEVER changed the reasoning for going into the invasion. EVER. 3. Give me one example of the last time two democratic countries went to war with each other.

Snuffbox, you're either deliberately ignorant or I'm overestimating your intelligence. A married couple with two children and an income of $40,000 had their taxes cut by 96%. That's middle-class. Do some research. STOP using the "talking points" argument. I'm warning you now. Also, work on your reading comprehension. Eliminate ALL welfare and there's plenty of money for military/national security. Expensive things I'm in favor of: Defense, a Great Wall, costs incurred from protecting the right to life of the unborn. Again, I basically only want the government to take care of national security and roads... if you take everything else away there's PLENTY of money. Post-WWII Japan.

You better source the claim that most Americans taxes are not down.

Read my post.

Eric, start naming alternatives. If you're going to criticize, you need to have a solution in mind. "Do it differently," is not a solution. I just said I advocate the idealistic solution, but it's seeming less and less like it will work. I'm not suggesting the possibility of leveling every city. If you want an example, let's talk about Iran. I'm talking about attacking their nuclear locations as well as their capital, if it is justified. And then, IF they start rebuilding their nuclear capabilities, leveling those again. You have absolutely no common sense. I3K, the accountability decision was exercised in 2004, the president was reelected in the most decisive election in 16 years. Now, the accountability decision can be exercised in the upcoming election. And then again in 2008. I don't agree that were unable to respond in meaningful ways to North Korea and Iran, because we wouldn't use a ground invasion anyway. Snuffbox, first of all, your criticism assumes that Freedom is just another ideology in a long list of equally valid ideologies. Perhaps it's unintentional, but you come across as someone who thinks all forms of government are the same, whether they be communist or Democratic... I hope I'm mistaken. I think government is a necessary evil, and as such should be as limited as possible in its effect on its own citizens. I also think Freedom is special, and yes everyone does want to be free. And no, I do not think other countries should live under OUR political system, just a free one. I don't understand how the concept is acceptable in Afghanistan and unacceptable in Iraq. You're telling me the reasons I'm defending this, and yet you've neglected the countless examples of my posts in which I show why a free Iraq is necessary for the idealistic solution to the war on terror. I'm completely at a loss to understand how you can write that I struggle to find any faults in the war. I have only posted about why I feel the war is justified, nothing about how it's going. Also, every instance in human history of people asserting their freedom is an example of coerced freedom. All freedom is coerced because it involves overthrowing some power and asserting your rights. I want: a closed border (for the purposes of national security, and if you're against that you're truly out of your mind) but open immigration, less laws, wholesale drug legalization, and lower taxes. Military/national security spending is the last thing we should be cutting in an effort to lower taxes. Start with every welfare program, none of that should be done by the government. I support the invasion of certain countries, when justified. I'm completely against huge expenditures. I'm against unlawful wiretapping on American citizens, but in favor of wiretapping terrorists. I don't support forcing another country to adopt my country's political philosophy, but I do support fighting for the right of the oppressed to be free. "Freedom" is different than "the exact same political philosophy as the United States".

Economic Left/Right: 5.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.05

You called me a neoconservative first. Seriously, are you this dense? Can you not see that I phrased my post EXACTLY like yours to prove a point. I guess I have overrated your intelligence. I'm not much for sarcasm tags and obvious implications. I figured you could see the point was not me calling you a progressive liberal, it was how stupid it is to throw out labels like that without knowing anything. I have repeatedly asked you to name issues so you can see where, exactly, I stand. You won't do it. Because you think it's easier this way.

Okay, to thank you for the post you made after the one I was responding to, I'll take delusional and change it to mistaken.

Now you are not only lying, but you're delusional.

How do people come to be progressive liberals? At what point in their educational development do they entirely miss the point that all people innately crave freedom and inherently deserve it? Eric, your post speaks volumes. You've always been fairly ignorant, and terrible at reading comprehension and using the written word to get your point across. But beyond that, you've always placed what you think is right above the freedom of others.

The argument was that Iraq and Al Qaeda were related as far as the overall War on Terror was concerned. I've posted countless times about how establishing stable democracies in the Middle East was central to Bush's plan for fighting this war. I won't do it again. Do a search. I will say that, after Afghanistan, Iraq was the perfect, justified, target to advance freedom. Now, I will totally agree that things are not going well. But if they continue to decline, the answer will not be one you like. The initial plan was the idealistic one, if we have to switch to a practical one, it will involve pulling troops out, as far as a ground war is concerned, and then leveling strategic cities throughout Middle Eastern countries. And then when they get built back up and get too powerful, knocking them down again. I prefer the idealistic solution, because I still believe there are moderate peace loving people that live in that region.

Have you heard of context? The quote, in full: The Lie is that the quote you posted was not at all meant to demonstrate a literal working relationship between Hussein and Al Qaeda.

Yes, that's true of me as well. The reason? People like you feel the UN is legitimate, so it's all the more effective if I can demonstrate justification on your terms. Oh, you forgot to address your lie.

You apparently can't make a connection between perception and how it affects public support. "The problem is that al-Queda has become an extension of Saddam's madness. He's made it very clear he hates the United States." -- our President, before the war. Yeah, the American people just fabricated that supposed link in their minds. Leading up the conflict, the line between al-Queda and Iraq was increasingly blurred. That's misleading the public. Talk about using perception to mislead. I love your use of that quotation. I would call you a liar, but technically the lie is in your implication.

You're saying check a poll on what Americans think as if that's evidence for what the Bush administration said... that's a gigantic reach. WMD's, War on Terror, Humanitarian, Defiance of UN... those were the four main justifications. Three of those are still true.

I don't follow as to why it's too late to do something in Afghanistan. And also your implicit idea that all we needed to do was respond to the Taliban. You seem to forget that being reactive has allowed terrorism to become as bad as it is... the further actions after Afghanistan were an effort to start becoming proactive. Terrorists are far worse than criminals. The issue was how to get Iraqis to stop blowing up Iraqis. The answer is with an Iraqi military and an Iraqi police force. Soldiers are not equipped to police terrorists, but they are equipped to destroy them. The problem is that they're being asked to do the former. My first use of police was as in, to control, not literally to use a police force. Israel's methods do work. They only stopped because they mistakenly bowed to the pressure of the anti-Semitic UN and EU.

I blame Bush and his Big Oil cronies.

The simple answer is: Yes. The reason is that that is what war is. That is why you declare war, and that is why a declaration of war must be made solemnly and carefully. I believe you're a Battlestar Galactica fan, are you not? They cover this idea, I think in episode three of the first season where Adama talks about why you separate the military from the police. This is the exact reason. Our current rules of engagement are really for a police force and not for soldiers. The biggest problem is that our soldiers are forced to act on the level of cops and robbers, while the guys they're fighting are acting on the level of a battlefield in war. And yet they do understand when insurgents kill/blow up/behead people who don't deserve it. You get the people who look just like the terrorists to be the ones policing/destroying them. Couldn't agree more. I don't follow. Eric, I agree with you as well except for the point that you think terrorists are criminals. I think calling them criminals is being nice... in fact, treating terrorism as a criminal issue was historically a big mistake on our country's part.

Here is a first, or maybe a second, I actually agree with Cheese. But... again with the WMD's, I still don't understand why people see that as the only justification given, when in reality there were four solid justifications, three of which were true on day one and are still true today. The press, and this includes Fox, went nuts over WMD's because it made the most sensational story. But, all four justifications have simultaneously been in the president's speeches since day one.

credit where it is due... you're absolutely right. The problem is not military strength, it's the tasks being assigned to the military. First, as a peacekeeping force the job is not to fuck shit up but to stop things from being fucked up, if you'll allow me to put it in simple terms. Second, we're using weak sauce rules of engagement... for what I've read our troops basically must be fired upon before they can fire back. If we took the gloves off, our military might would be fine. But that may not be the best course of action, wholesale.

Well, we just had one real similarity to Vietnam... using the success, or lack thereof, of the war to determine whether it was justified or not. You're nuts.

Absolutely wrong. Unequivocally incorrect. We freed the Iraqis. Nobody forced any of the Iraqi people to become terrorists. The ones engaging in the violence don't want a free country. The entire issue is making sure that the ones who do are able enough to put down the terrorist attacks. Free will exists, don't forget.

Good to see some pro Pac-10 posts after today's games.

How gracious of you. No wonder you couldn't hack it in tennis.