BY MARK BROWN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

"Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood.

You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.

Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.

By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.

But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?

It's hard to swallow, isn't it?

Americans cross own barrier
If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling.

For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.

I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces.

Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders).

I think it's possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well.

Deciding democracy's worth
On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing:

Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something.

Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly.

Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well.

I don't want to get carried away in the moment.

Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world.

Most of the obstacles to success in Iraq are all still there, the ones that have always led me to believe that we would eventually be forced to leave the country with our tail tucked between our legs. (I've maintained from the start that if you were impressed by the demonstrations in the streets of Baghdad when we arrived, wait until you see how they celebrate our departure, no matter the circumstances.)

In and of itself, the voting did nothing to end the violence. The forces trying to regain the power they have lost -- and the outside elements supporting them -- will be no less determined to disrupt our efforts and to drive us out.

Somebody still has to find a way to bring the Sunnis into the political process before the next round of elections at year's end. The Iraqi government still must develop the capacity to protect its people.

And there seems every possibility that this could yet end in civil war the day we leave or with Iraq becoming an Islamic state every bit as hostile to our national interests as was Saddam.

Penance could be required
But on Sunday, we caught a glimpse of the flip side. We could finally see signs that a majority of the Iraqi people perceive something to be gained from this brave new world we are forcing on them.

Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain.

Obviously, I'm still curious to see if Bush is willing to allow the Iraqis to install a government that is free to kick us out or to oppose our other foreign policy efforts in the region.

So is the rest of the world.

For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy.

If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.

Maybe I'd have to vote Republican in 2008."


Could it be that some on the left are starting to realize they have been wrong all along? Is there a light at the end of their dark tunnel?

Great article, sir

This statement is very well put and what a lot of the anti-Bush mongers seem to be showing recently:

It's hard to swallow, isn't it?

Americans cross own barrier
If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling.

For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.

Some posters in Teh Politics have made some undeniably weak statements recently. Some of them even went as far to say the huge turnout of Iraqi voters that cast their ballots did so just so American forces would leave. This very same poster even went as far to say that Americans are far more notorious for their torture tactics than Iraq ever was. Are you kidding me? This can be proven false ten times over and had been in that thread.

Others have been claiming to be “realists” when they’ve been pessimistic and against anything that relates to the Republican party since 2000. They’re the same type of people that just missed the green light at an intersection and slam the steering wheel. They’re the same type of person that gets to an empty pot of coffee at the office and think it only happens to them. They always have that “glass half-empty” negative demeanor and think it’s the way things are for everything and actually apply it in life.

Truth be told I though Clinton was a fairly good President. He stepped on his tail a couple times and was responsible (along with the UN) for a lot of deaths that never got that much play. Maybe this was because he wasn’t coined with the same stereotypes as our current Texan “Get’er done” President. Who knows as that’s an entirely different thread... but at least you heard it from me.

All I’m saying is that nobody is ever willing to give credit when it’s due here. There’s no question that the Iraqi people are in support of Democracy and that it has a sure chance of survival. It’s no longer a shot in the dark whatsoever but some of you will still manage to bring down the party in one way or another regarding the “overwhelming insurgency” or whatever.

For example, a very good friend of mine was put on election security for Iraq. This person is serving with one of the units svxr8dr and myself served with and is attached with Blackwater Security Cons as we speak. He sends me emails that things are quiet where he is and that he’s actually more concerned about running out of Met-Rx protein shakes for lifting and iPod batteries than an attack. He sends me jokes via email once a week too!

We always hear about the occasional car bombing or accident in Iraq, right? What you fail to understand is that’s these are minuscule attacks that are spun by the media to make it seem like Iraq is the size of a small town. Did you not get any sleep -or- have a personal breakdown when Columbine took place? Better yet... did you manage to finish your day and eat lunch during the breaking news on the Oklahoma city bombing and 9/11? You may have been depressed but it certainly didn’t derail your daily life. What makes you think a carbomb that produced 6 Iraqi police fatalities or a downed U.S. helicopter that suffered from malfunctions is greater? Did you walk outside and see the smoke for any of the above instances that took place on U.S. soil? I hardly doubt it. Do you think the horizon is infinitely flat in Iraq to where someone can see a petty car bombing 200miles away from Baghdad? Nope.

YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Great article NOT!

Where to begin. So many ways to tear this apart so little time. Sigh.

First off we went in there the wrong way and without a exist strategy. Second just because the elections where a success does NOT mean the issues are ended. My republican friend where talking about this and you know what he said? He said and I qoute, "Well see how long that poor bastard is kept alive before someone offs him." I could keep going how this article trys to spin the war as a great sucess that was planned by Jr to be like this from the start. But of course they fail to say how there were no WMD or terrorist connections. How we have no real support from outside countries. How our generals have constantly asked for more troops. How we have lost so many troops and so many Iraqies. Want me to keep going? Please, articles like this are straight propaganda and Salty you should know better.

I hardly doubt it. Do you think the horizon is infinitely flat in Iraq to where someone can see a petty car bombing 200miles away from Baghdad? Nope.

Funny concidering a bombing happened in the GREEN ZONE of Baghdad a day or two ago.

YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Great article NOT!

Where to begin. So many ways to tear this apart so little time. Sigh.

First off we went in there the wrong way and without a exist strategy. Second just because the elections where a success does NOT mean the issues are ended. My republican friend where talking about this and you know what he said? He said and I qoute, "Well see how long that poor bastard is kept alive before someone offs him." I could keep going how this article trys to spin the war as a great sucess that was planned by Jr to be like this from the start. But of course they fail to say how there were no WMD or terrorist connections. How we have no real support from outside countries. How our generals have constantly asked for more troops. How we have lost so many troops and so many Iraqies. Want me to keep going? Please, articles like this are straight propaganda and Salty you should know better.

So are you saying the election is a sign of nothing? Get real. I think you're reacting this way to a decent article because there's a real potential that everything you've said up to this point will look silly. The election was a big success. No, it's not all finished, but it did two things: 1) They got to vote, which had them celebrating in the streets. 2) The terrorists have had to resort to inciting sunni-shiite violence, whereas before they were mainly anti-American. Sure looks like desperation to me, this trying to rally 20 percent of the population against the other 80.

haha, nice mention of WMD and terrorism though. Do you honestly think that worldwide terrorism is not going to be discredited at least to a degree if Iraq develops further along these lines? And do you think the Iraqis will care about the WMD fiasco if they get a democratic state?

I guess we should be nice to the people like Unregistered, considering that more than likely History will place their opinions only as a footnote and will consider everything that their ilk stood for as wrong and misguided. It's got to be really demoralizing.

Funny concidering a bombing happened in the GREEN ZONE of Baghdad a day or two ago.

You are solidifying my point.

We all know about that attack, yes? But other than some grief, sorrow and a surprised "no ****" type statement from the other 100k+ troops on the ground, how exactly does that effect the bigger picture regarding the mission and conducting oneself?

Do you think the Iraqi voters thought about the unfortunate greenzone bombing as their ballot left the tips of their fingers?

Sure looks like desperation to me, this trying to rally 20 percent of the population against the other 80.

They've been 'rallying' the 20% vs the 80% for hundreds of years...it's not just since the election or even since the beginning of the war or of Saddam...


Do you honestly think that worldwide terrorism is not going to be discredited at least to a degree if Iraq develops further along these lines?

Nope, not in the slightest. Iraq never was a big terrorist producing state. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, etc...are still the same as before...terrorism won't be affected in the least by anything that's happened in Iraq.

I agree that we did a good thing for the Iraqi people and for our monitary and energy needs. But considering we gave Iraqi's help without their asking for it, and that war shouldn't be fought for money and oil in the modern world, the war in general is still a complete and total disaster. If we want to spread democracy, why haven't we launched this campaign in every country with a cruel dictator around the world? Because that's all that the election in Iraq has proven...that we can set up a democracy in a state that we are involved with for our own selfish purposes. You can't claim we are doing this just for the furtherment of democracy and for the Iraqi people...that's BS and everyone here knows it.

HeHe :)

The title of this thread should be:
What if Bush was wrong about Iraq all along, but now that we set up a democracy over there and our oil prices will fall, noone cares that he was wrong and lied to America and the world.

They've been 'rallying' the 20% vs the 80% for hundreds of years...it's not just since the election or even since the beginning of the war or of Saddam...

But that 20% was extremely favored by Saddam, was given many special privelgdges because of this and had the upper hand over the 80% you speak of. Why on earth do you think the Sunni population is so upset?

But that 20% was extremely favored by Saddam, was given many special privelgdges because of this and had the upper hand over the 80% you speak of. Why on earth do you think the Sunni population is so upset?


I know. I was just pointing out that the insurgents turn from Anti-America to Anti-Shiite is not a sign of desperation, it's just how the Sunnis are.

They've been 'rallying' the 20% vs the 80% for hundreds of years...it's not just since the election or even since the beginning of the war or of Saddam...




Nope, not in the slightest. Iraq never was a big terrorist producing state. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, etc...are still the same as before...terrorism won't be affected in the least by anything that's happened in Iraq.

I agree that we did a good thing for the Iraqi people and for our monitary and energy needs. But considering we gave Iraqi's help without their asking for it, and that war shouldn't be fought for money and oil in the modern world, the war in general is still a complete and total disaster. If we want to spread democracy, why haven't we launched this campaign in every country with a cruel dictator around the world? Because that's all that the election in Iraq has proven...that we can set up a democracy in a state that we are involved with for our own selfish purposes. You can't claim we are doing this just for the furtherment of democracy and for the Iraqi people...that's BS and everyone here knows it.


On the division: No, they have not. Scan the reports from before the election and last year. Zarqawi and others portrayed their movement as a pan-Iraqi movement, unified in trying to get the Americans out. Michael Moore said the same thing. Now, they're issuing press releases talking about stopping Baghdad from becoming a haven for Shiites. That's a change in the message alright, and it exposes Zarqawi's consciousness of the fact that the vast majority of Iraq doesn't want him there.

On terrorism: You're kidding right? Saddam has always been a major sponsor of terrorism. He gave scholarships to suicide bombers in Israel, tried to build nuclear weapons before the Israelis bombed his reactor, and had close ties to Syria, another terror state.

You didn't consider the main issue, which is, worldwide terrorists have been saying that the US is only out to harm muslims, destroy and rape Iraq, etc. Iraq has become a focal point for jihadists all over the world. Now how stupid are they going to look, if the Iraqis end up with a stable democratic government, and a quality of life MUCH higher than in any place where the terror-networks have a lot of power?

It will make many people in countries other than Iraq realize that we only help when we get something out of it (oil). Which, in my reasoning, will leave many more people unhappy with the US because we claim to be helping other countries when we really only help other countries when it suits us. That will lead to just as many terrorist, if not more than before the war.

And the link between Saddam and terrorsim is tennuous at best...we've been over this before...no terrorism, no WMDs remember...

Ok, about the pan-Iraq movenment this is true. But what did you think the Sunnis would do if they did pull the impossible and got the US out? They'd kill all the Shiites next. Sunnis don't like Shiites and the other way around. The Sunnis are also more nationalistic than the Shiites, so they are more opposed to outside influence.
Sunnis hated Shiites before we got there. Then the Sunnis had a bigger problem...US. Now that we beat the Sunnis pretty much (or at least forced them to be an 'insurgency' in their own country), they're turning back to their favorite pasttime-killing Shiites.

It will make many people in countries other than Iraq realize that we only help when we get something out of it (oil). Which, in my reasoning, will leave many more people unhappy with the US because we claim to be helping other countries when we really only help other countries when it suits us. That will lead to just as many terrorist, if not more than before the war.

Here's a hypothetical situation: You're 5yrs old and you're at the carnival snack stand. You have a major craving for a something sweet and sour. Which do you purchase assuming each has the same price:

a)The regular, un-coated granny smith apple?

b)The caramel coated granny smith apple?

c)The caramel coated granny smith apple with sprinkled pecans?

Having an interest in war is not rocket science, it's business, politics and has been done since Alexander the Great. We've covered out interest in Iraq before (search) and actually came to a reasonable agreement on that.

If you need me to explain what the toppings represent then I’m willing to get take a knee and tell you, MVWRX.

Then the Sunnis had a bigger problem...US. Now that we beat the Sunnis pretty much (or at least forced them to be an 'insurgency' in their own country), they're turning back to their favorite pasttime-killing Shiites.

It's not a Sunni country. They're a small minority of the population that brutally ruled over the majority. I think the Shiites deserved to be treated with basic human decency in a land where they do most of the work, and are most of the population and have been for a long time.

As for terrorism, I was talking about WMD programs in the past run by Saddam that indicate he was pro-terrorism and the recent scholarship programs. No one has even bothered to dispute that obvious link; Saddam would pay palestinians whose sons blew themselves up in Israel. Do you also remember when he had a war in 1991 with the US, and decided to shoot missiles at Israel just to stir things up?

The man was as much a terrorist as any alive.

How about this analogy. Your neighbor is given 1 million dollars because he lives on top of some oil. You, and all the rest of your neighbors, are given nothing. The guy who gave the money had pissed you off before in more than one way.

Now what happens? You start liking him in hopes that he'll give you 1 million dollars even though you don't have oil?? NO....you hate him for playing selfish favorites.

My analogy is a lot better. If everyone acted like 5 year olds, we could've invaded Iraq with a huge speaker playing lulabyes.

It's not a Sunni country. They're a small minority of the population that brutally ruled over the majority. I think the Shiites deserved to be treated with basic human decency in a land where they do most of the work, and are most of the population and have been for a long time.

As for terrorism, I was talking about WMD programs in the past run by Saddam that indicate he was pro-terrorism and the recent scholarship programs. No one has even bothered to dispute that obvious link; Saddam would pay palestinians whose sons blew themselves up in Israel. Do you also remember when he had a war in 1991 with the US, and decided to shoot missiles at Israel just to stir things up?

The man was as much a terrorist as any alive.



That's all fine. But as I've mentioned, I don't think his demise will stop terrorism in the least. I think Shiites desearved to be treated with basic human decency too. But that's not why we went to Iraq, it's just a fortunate outcome. There are millions of people around the world who are oppressed as badly or worse than the Shiites were...so why don't we go give them elections too? The ONLY answer to that is we had more to gain in Iraq than their freedom.

How about this analogy. Your neighbor is given 1 million dollars because he lives on top of some oil. You, and all the rest of your neighbors, are given nothing. The guy who gave the money had pissed you off before in more than one way.

Now what happens? You start liking him in hopes that he'll give you 1 million dollars even though you don't have oil?? NO....you hate him for playing selfish favorites.

My analogy is a lot better. If everyone acted like 5 year olds, we could've invaded Iraq with a huge speaker playing lulabyes.

war for oil analogies are weak sauce and are a sign of tin foil hat wearers.

The ONLY answer to that is we had more to gain in Iraq than their freedom.
Correct...It's called a democracy on the East and West of Iran. Or the possibly the beginning of regional stability.

Biblical sitings in a political discussion are weak sauce and a sign of people who can't think for themselves.

Correct...It's called a democarcy on the East and West of Iran. Or the possibly the beginning of regional stability.

Bullsh**. I'm sorry, but that is total and complete fooy. You eat propaganda like it was sugar coated and deep fried.

Biblical sitings in a political discussion are weak sauce and a sign of people who can't think for themselves.


I'm not even a Christian and you are the one who misquoted the Ten Commandments.

Bullsh**. I'm sorry, but that is total and complete fooy. You eat propaganda like it was sugar coated and deep fried.

Go back home to the Daily Kos or some other leftwing propagandist site, cause your head is in your 4th point of contact

Dude, I don't CARE I was using it as an example of how evil and good are OBJECTIVE IDEAS. You can't argue with that, there is no such thing as an ultimate good or evil especially if you're not religious. It's opinion.

Go back home to the Daily Kos or some other leftwing propagandist site, cause your head is in your 4th point of contact

How original.

Go back home to the Daily Kos or some other leftwing propagandist site, cause your head is in your 4th point of contact

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/sierra11b/Emoticons/lol.gif

Ahh... greenramp memories

Wait...svxr8dr are you another of Salty's pals...I'm starting to understand where you're coming from...

Wait...svxr8dr are you another of Salty's pals...I'm starting to understand where you're coming from...

We have "similar" backgrounds.

HAHAHAHAHHAH Oh god this is great how many is that now salty? Atleast straighten the idiot out. We went in for oil you moron a WHOLE thread was made about it and I believe even SALTY agreed. Jesus where did you come up with this idiot?

HAHAHAHAHHAH Oh god this is great how many is that now salty? Atleast straighten the idiot out. We went in for oil you moron a WHOLE thread was made about it and I believe even SALTY agreed. Jesus where did you come up with this idiot?

Slow down, turbo.
No reason to call people moron & idiot just because they is different than you.

But back to the topic at hand.
Iraq should not exist.
As you all know, Iraq was created after WW1.
Ideally, it should be broken back up and the pieces given to the surrounding countries.

HAHAHAHAHHAH Oh god this is great how many is that now salty? Atleast straighten the idiot out. We went in for oil you moron a WHOLE thread was made about it and I believe even SALTY agreed. Jesus where did you come up with this idiot?

You have no room to call people idiots, Unregistered. You and MVWRX are at very top of the moron dogpile regarding attention to detail and accuracy in posts. As a moderator of this forum, I honestly believe this after having read through most of your posts.

svxr8dr and myself just so happened to serve in the same battalion and company in the 82nd Airborne Division. But he served with the Blue Falcons a decade before I even wore a uniform. We have never met and if you had half a brain you would have already noticed he's been on the forum a lot longer than myself (click profile). If anything, svx8dr invited me to I-club and not the opposite. See what I mean about attention to detail?

And I don't believe we went just for oil. How many times do I have to say this?! Did you not read this thread? Did you not understand post #16 in this thread and the other thread we beat to a pulp regarding this issue? I believe we went for Iraqis’ freedom of democracy, military presence in the area and oil among other, lesser interests. Now take a minute to absorb that statement.

war for oil analogies are weak sauce and are a sign of tin foil hat wearers.


Need I say more?

Need I say more?


Yes. He's right in a sense that it's not for oil. Just oil. He makes no other assumptions beyond that so you have no reason to flame him at this point. Did you read MVWRX's so-called analogy that only suggests oil as a factor? If anything, you should be straightening that idiot out.

Yes. He's right in a sense that it's not for oil. Just oil. He makes no other assumptions beyond that so you have no reason to flame him at this point. Did you read MVWRX's so-called analogy that only suggests oil as a factor? If anything, you should be straightening that idiot out.


I'm not an idiot, and we did go there pretty much only for oil.

Wow!! I disagree with you twice in one post

I'm in a better mood today than yesterday...so I'll ignore that and asume that if we actually met, you'd see that I'm not an idiot by any stretch of the word...plus, I'm still in mourning over the capture of Elmo.

fair enough. I too would care to play nice today.

I'm not an idiot, and we did go there pretty much only for oil.

Pretty much for oil? You claim you're not an idiot by following it up with the same idiotic statement? I don't get the logic! So what's "pretty much" left on the agenda?

Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia dwarf Iraq oil imports to the United States by over 10 times! And even some of your friends here argue how we still haven't even tapped some domestic oil reserves on the Northwest and Western coasts! Why do you think we went there "pretty much only" for oil when it's not worth the cost in resources to reach the finish line?

Iraq supplies the United States with approximately $5-6 billion worth of oil each year at about 5%-6% of our overall imports. You’re looking at a 26year debt just to break even if we assume the current Iraqi government produces the same amount of barrels for the United States. Even if they produced more it still wouldn’t come close to South America’s production. You’d still be looking at a 10 year debt just to pay for the cost in OIF resources. Having an American foothold in the middle east along with a democratic government/influence in the region is far more important.

If anything, we occupied Iraq for Military Presence first, Freedom and Democracy in the region second and then oil and other interests further down the list.

Having an American foothold in the middle east along with a democratic government/influence in the region is far more important.

So we can control the region's oil. We've always wanted *more* influence over OPEC.


If anything, we occupied Iraq for Military Presence first, Freedom and Democracy in the region second and then oil and other interests further down the list.

I'd say: Military Presence in order to secure future oil first, Freedom and Democracy second.


*Fixed it for you...

So we can control the region's oil. We've always wanted influence over OPEC.



I'd say: Military Presence in order to secure future oil first, Freedom and Democracy second.

Well there's your version of caramel and pecans, MVWRX. And even though I believe we have a decent influence over OPEC with Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and the fact we consume 25% of the worlds oil, I believe this is a much better presumption than before.

Some posters in Teh Politics have made some undeniably weak statements recently...

Others have been claiming to be “realists” when they’ve been pessimistic and against anything that relates to the Republican party since 2000. They’re the same type of people that just missed the green light at an intersection and slam the steering wheel. They’re the same type of person that gets to an empty pot of coffee at the office and think it only happens to them. They always have that “glass half-empty” negative demeanor and think it’s the way things are for everything and actually apply it in life.



I know this is at least partly directed toward me, I'm not stupid :). How about rather than making these 'undeniably weak' generalized accusations, why not respond to the posts I've made explaining why I believe I am being 'realistic' and not 'pessimistic.' As far as I can tell, you read those, couldn't think of a decent refutation, then ran off to another thread and made this lame ass statement. All I ask is that you stop assuming what other people think and discounting every other opinion besides your own as a result of a 'glass half-empty' attitude. At this point, I could care less who is the president, and I'm certainly not holding a stale attitude carried over from 2000. I've always been one to question, and I also know the importance of asking and addressing important questions.

Like gpatmac found recently in his thread, we all seem to have the same basic ideals... the partisan tone in the country has seemed to make people THINK we are fighting for opposite agendas, but, after a cool, respectful conversation, we find that liberals and conservatives have alot more in common than one thought.

Keeping this in mind, if one continues to demean and associate liberals with everything they're not, they are only fooling themselves and contributing to the false, media-perpetuated partisan bullsh*t that has taken over our country.


Wait, don't listren to me, I'm obviously a misguided liberal who only wishes for the downfall of our country. ;)

I know this is at least partly directed toward me, I'm not stupid :). How about rather than making these 'undeniably weak' generalized accusations, why not respond to the posts I've made explaining why I believe I am being 'realistic' and not 'pessimistic.' As far as I can tell, you read those, couldn't think of a decent refutation, then ran off to another thread and made this lame ass statement. All I ask is that you stop assuming what other people think and discounting every other opinion besides your own as a result of a 'glass half-empty' attitude. At this point, I could care less who is the president, and I'm certainly not holding a stale attitude carried over from 2000. I've always been one to question, and I also know the importance of asking and addressing important questions.

Like gpatmac found recently in his thread, we all seem to have the same basic ideals... the partisan tone in the country has seemed to make people THINK we are fighting for opposite agendas, but, after a cool, respectful conversation, we find that liberals and conservatives have alot more in common than one thought.

Keeping this in mind, if one continues to demean and associate liberals with everything they're not, they are only fooling themselves and contributing to the false, media-perpetuated partisan bullsh*t that has taken over our country.


You want to know why? Because you're so far gone it's not worth it. I've told you that I wouldn't waste my time with you some time ago. You're nothing but a conformist to me. Now go ahead and make another smartass comment about me throwing in the towel and about me being a conservative nutso, scoobsport. Or better yet, use the term "Neocon" towards me like you know what it means and how to properly use it in a sentence.

Wait, don't listren to me, I'm obviously a misguided liberal who only wishes for the downfall of their country. ;)

Fixed that for you.

Fixed that for you.

Fixed what? More effort, Salty, c'mon :) (nevermind - I see what you did- funny... I thought you meant to correct my speeling)

You only affirm what I've said all along. I try make a rational, constructive point and you discount me once again. How exactly am I a conformist? I know you don't want to waste your time explaining, but why start calling names if you aren't going to provide any support? So far, you've only helped me make my point.

If I'm so obviously 'gone' and 'out there,' it shouldn't be so hard to explain and make clear. You haven't even made an effort. As the moderator of the forum, by discounting the opinion of those who make an effort to reach across the party lines, you are only encouraging those who have any disagreement with you to not participate in the forum at all. I am amazed that others here have the patience to take the time and try to explain things here, on both sides of the spectrum. You just don't seem to be one of them.

Bump... If I'm not woth replying to- just say so. I've made an effort to explain my position, and you, so far, have not. I'm not making 'smartass comments about you throwing in the towel and about you being a conservative nutso,' as much as it seems you'd like for me to be doing. Do you have anything constructive to say? Or shall I believe I've made a point here that you simply refuse to respond to?

Oh, and letting the thread die and fizzle out doesn't completely work :D (Bump powaH!)