You have made me giggle, so I will give you a response. My intent is to point out that you base nothing upon facts, rather, your entire perception is a hodgepodge of biased platitudes and silly name calling.

You say: If I could believe that this war against Iraq would be conducted as honestly and fairly as any war can, with no intentional loss of innocent life and as little all-round blood loss as possible, I just might support it.

From this, the only possible conclusion is that you believe that George W. Bush will intentionally attempt to kill innocents. Now then, my good Sirrah, I would question you on what you are basing this presumption upon. There is no reason to believe that the President would intentionally desire to kill innocents; it is counter to logic. Killing innocents (whether intentionally or not) results in: (a) very bad PR, (b) armed resistance from the population (in Iraq), (c) a loss of support from the population (both in Iraq, and in the US), and (d) International condemnation (This will happen regardless of whether innocents are killed "intentionally" or not).

Now then, one can easily assert that the US will intentionally kill innocents, then cover it up. Yet, the easiest way to avoid having to go through the process of covering up actions, is to not act in that manner at all. Further, with such high stakes, intentionally killing civilians -- then covering it up -- is very risky.

To be frank, your statement is a platitude of pacifist anti-logic.

But I can't. Not with Bush as President. The man has all the intelligence and grasp of the English language of a swatted fly.

Indeed, your ability to discern the intelligence level of a person from their public speaking is astounding. This is another platitude. Further, I would be willing to conjecture that the majority of Americans (or Brits, or Aussies) -- when speaking in front of large groups -- would make many grammatical and syntactical mistakes as well. Is it your contention that everyone who has difficulty speaking in public has the intelligence and grasp of the english language of a swatted fly?

He was never properly voted in in the first place, and he knows it; the way I see it, if he will deceive and manipulate the public for his own personal gain and that of his friends and family once, he will do it again.

The US is a representative republic. Bush was elected in following the procedures of its electoral system.

It is perhaps time to stop attempting to take his government down on a misconstrued understanding of the US electoral process, and instead argue against his programs and actions in a coherent, factual manner.

Maybe a war against Iraq is a necessary evil, and maybe it isn't - but, by God! There is now way I will ever believe that George W Bush is the right man to conduct it.

Ah, if only that had been the only paragraph, I would not have slithered out of the depths.

My intention here is not to belittle you, but rather to point out the incoherence and "flimsiness" (my new favorite word, that) of your post. I, too, have great fears about the War against Iraq. Yet, the continuing inability of anti-Iraq war protesters and posters to form a semi-strong argument needs to be addressed.

Perhaps it is due to a lack of imagination, or perhaps because there is no such argument, other than an ideological one.


The Holy One.