Just so we understand what Michael thinks is the dangerous ravings of a lunatic: What amazes me is how short the memory is of certain people. After 9/11, Bush said that this is a war against terrorism EVERYWHERE not just in Afghanistan and not just against Al Queda. He even specifically mentioned Iraq as being one of the states he intended on taking down. I fully support him now just as I fully supported the liberation of Kuwait in 1990. You see, I have friends who died in the World Trade Center. I spent 10 years of my life working in those towers. I have been to the site and placed flowers in the ruins. Sadaam may not have been directly involved in the WTC but he was involved in terrorism, of that there is no question. Whther it is terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, or Syria they all represent the same thing. According to Michael, anyone who wants to end terrorism in the world is "reactionary, dangerous, half-cocked." Michael, it is you who are "reactionary, dangerous, and half-cocked."
Originally posted by Thomas Paul: What you had to say sounds like a flaming liberal twit that would rather see 3,000 dead Americans in American streets than see 100 dead Americans in Bagdhad's streets.
I don't see those as the only available choices, Thomas. If those are the only choices you see, then it explains your position well enough.
Lighting a cigarette is "reactionary, dangerous, half-cocked". The lucky ones (?) have a choice.This has been a useful thread but enough has been said as the debate has gone way beyond the parameters of the initial questions. It is time to shake hands and move on. Live to debate another day. regards