[ZTWsquared]

tdot-zx3,Oct 23 2005, 06: Wrote:No you just dont know my stance....

That's right, I didn't ... because you chose to attempt ridicule rather than state your stance; a sign IMO of intellectual weakness.

tdot-zx3,Oct 23 2005, 06: Wrote:My stance is you have any doubt there wasnt more motives then just nuclear weapons (which wasnt even a motive at all.. it was an excuse) your basically an idiot.

Your "stance," otherwise known as your "opinion" (that's the "O" in IMO) is duly noted. Using IMO is often considered a sign of intellectual honesty when stating things that are still subject to debate; and sorry, even if my opinion is the same as yours, the existence of WMD (which Saddam claimed he had), and whether or not influential people in Bush's circle of advisors truly believed he had them, are two subjects that are still open to debate and new discovery. There are a lot of people in this world who know a lot more about this subject than you do, who think that people who believe as you do are naive idiots.

tdot-zx3,Oct 23 2005, 06: Wrote:fairly obvious for over a year now ...

"Fairly obvious" is hardly the absolute truth that you would apparently have us believe; and it's been "fairly obvious" for a lot longer than a year. But thanks for sharing.

tdot-zx3,Oct 23 2005, 06: Wrote:just nuclear weapons (which wasnt even a motive at all.. it was an excuse) your basically an idiot.

This could be part of your problem right here ... the acronym WMD includes a lot of weapons that are not nuclear ... and BTW, Saddam has already used them on at least one occasion, and that is a matter of fact.

And, oh ... you better dig a little deeper into your thesaurus because the difference between "motive" and "excuse" is hardly enough to warrant calling thoughtful people "idiots."

And if you're going to call people idiots because of their opinion, don't you think you need to back that up with more than just your own opinion? Or does your particular brand of intellectual honesty not include that kind of a notion?

tdot-zx3,Oct 23 2005, 06: Wrote:This is not a 'war' where you can only call 1 side animals.

So this is it? You thought about it long and hard and "war is bad" is the grand total of the wisdom you want to share? Why not respond to things that were actually written rather than some imaginary slight of the "other" side.

And for those of you still reading ... the term "insurgent," as used to describe certain armed fighters in Iraq, IMO would only be misused if you don't believe there is a legitimate civil authority in Iraq. And given the high level of participation in elections there (despite American influence) my opinion right now is that there is a legitimate civil authority; and therefore the term insurgent is appropriate.

P.S. to tdot ... the only thing "utter" about your sarcasm was its transparency and lack of wit. Do try harder next time.