Hmm, where to start.
Let's go in chronological order.
yes in war, civilians do die. I totally agree with you. Sacrifices must be made, and if we were talking about Afghanastan i would totally agree with you. But since the only reason e're in Iraq is for oil, obvousely(sp?) Bush cares more for oil than the people of iraq.
I don't know if you've noticed, but Oil Prices have gone way up since the Iraq War started. On top of that, there is hardly any oil coming out of Iraq, and what is coming out we are paying the Iraqis for.
And yes Bush is the worst president we have ever had.
ok.
He has manipulated the United states into a war for oil.
See above.
and him doing nothing about global warming is horrible.
What do you expect him to do? Sign Kyoto? Yeah right. Even Clinton wouldn't do it, and the Senate voted it down 98-0. No one is going to cripple our economy because of an unproven and possibly naturally occurring phenomenon.
Another example of his incompetence is Katrina. His inability to react caused thousands of americans to die.
If by thousands, you mean less than 2000, then ok. But that's beside the point.
Bush isn't solely to blame for the mishandling of Katrina. He can't just simply stand up, point and it's done immediately. There is local government to consider, the FEMA bureaucracy and more. Don't try and pin it all on Bush.
Now for Zaku...
Amazing, you completely misunderstood me. I didn't mean to say that every time someone says something, they need to back it up with facts.
I agree, and you did say something, yet lacked to back it up.
What I was originally referring to was your calling my statement of 600,000 deaths "absurd" without even offering at least a different number.
I realize that, and rectified my error. So far you have not withdrawn your previous figure or given me any reliable sources (or any at all) to back it up.
But, go ahead and continue to use it to attack me if it makes you happy.
There is a difference between pointing out an error in reasoning and making a personal attack. I did the former. Please try to recognize the difference. It's quite clear. So long as I don't say you are stupid, foolish or make any attacks on your character, it's fair game. I have done none of these.
By the way, that seems like a very "ends justify the means" way of thinking, which I sometimes support, but come on.
Please answer the following question:
Would you rather one Iraqi die or one American die? Don't say neither, because that's not what I asked.
Retaliating to a terrorist attack by starting a war in a country completely unrelated to said attack and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands is not a proportionate response, and I think you'll find many of the international community agree with me, hence the lack of U.S. support.
Fortunately for us, we don't need to rely on the 'international community' for support. We have the means to do what is necessary, with or without support from France or Russia.
The Iraq War was not started as a direct response to the September 11th attacks. The Afghanistan War was. The Iraq War was started because of Saddam's well documented WMD programs and his repeated refusal to change his ways.
Also, whether or not he really had them doesn't matter. I say this because all the intelligence available said he did, and Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Pelosi and all the others certainly agreed in 1998. Their switch in 2003 was purely political.
The Iraq war is a part of the War on Terror, which was started by the 9/11 attacks. It was not, however, started in direct response to these attacks. The guys who pulled of 9/11 are not the only people who want us all dead. At the time, Iraq was the greatest threat to us, and we responded as was necessary. Hindsight is 20/20. It might have been a mistake, but if it was, it's been made and we have to see it through or risk even worse consequences.
Author