I am saying that you are being condescending stating that "only anti-war folks are smart enough etc..". As if they are a small minority of egotistical folks who think they are smarter than the majority etc...
When the reality is the population is evenly split at best, with both sides thinking they know more about the situation than the other side. It just has a passive aggressive, Rove like feeling to it. The bottom line is you think we are spending $400 billion and killing thousands of Americans, Iraqis and others for a good cause in support of a President you believe in. I feel that Bush did a good job by going into Afghanistan and taking care of business there. And that we would have been better off perusing Terrorists rather than initiating a regime change in Iraq by starting a pre-emptive war with questionable intelligence and even more questionable reading of that intelligence. We would still have much better support in tracking and eliminating terrorists through-out the world. We would have greater resources to dedicate to the goal. And would not needlessly be risking thousands of American lives in a situation that there is little to no hope of ever having true success at. We are either stuck there for decades, or there will be chaos when we leave. Our President engaged us in a situation that we have no hope of actually getting out of successfully. Democracy by gunpoint isn't democracy. -----Original Message----- From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 10:27 AM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: REAL news from Iraq On 12/2/05, Ken Ketsdever wrote: > The problem is that Anti-war folks make up roughly half the population or > more depending on which survey you believe. So your statement that "only the > anti-war folks are smart enough to know the truth about anything." represents > roughly half the population maybe more. I don't understand your point. Are you saying half ARE right, GG's view, or that they just disagree, my view. > The other problem with your statement (second paragraph) is that your > argument is very valid for the War in Afghanistan. It was both an > appropriate and effective response to the attacks against the World Trade > Center. But the War in Iraq had little (given you some credit here) to > nothing to so with terrorism. Iraq invaded Kuwait 10 years earlier. That was > settled. But there was no more and probably much less evidence of Iraq > supporting the Al Qeada, than there was of support from Syria, Saudi Arabia, > Jordan, Pakistan and a half dozen other countries in the region. And > personally I believe Bush and his cronies at best mislead (probably out and > out lied to) the American public with biased intelligence to justify his > pre-emptive war in Iraq. If that is not the case then I question his ability > to look at facts and come to a reasonable conclusion. Too many people and > organizations questioned his administrations read of the evidence. > That's your opinion and I respect that. But I disagree and we've beaten this argument to death so I'm going to leave it be. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:185501 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
