I would take you a lot more seriously if you did not have all these same opinions about Afghanistan. That's where the famous "wedding party" was, and I spent a lot of time here listening to you crapping on our military during the year or so between the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. It's obvious that your rhetoric here would not be one iota different if Saddam still ran Iraq.

Of all the anti-Iraq-war liberals here, as far as I know, you're the only one who thinks we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan, either.

At least your anti-Americanism is consistent.

In all this time you have yet to tell us how you would deal with terrorists based in a terrorist-supporting state. Obviously you don't like military solutions of any sort. You have zero tolerance for civilian casualties or collateral damage, making any form of warfare impossible to your standards. You don't approve of our attacking a nation that did actually support an attack on U.S. soil. You don't like targeted missions by special forces, or any of the other options often suggested as alternatives to invasions.

You've got nothing.

I keep hearing that someone else would have done better than Bush, but I never hear WHAT they would have done.

People like Raoul and others come up with silly ideas ("call the cops"), but at least they gives it a shot.

How many times has a thread ended with this challenge?

As for the rest, you can make a case that we should not have gone into Iraq in 2003. But we would have had to go in sooner or later, just like we did in the Gulf War, and for the same reasons, and it would have gotten more difficult the longer we waited. I realize you have erased pre-2003 Saddam from your mind, but I haven't.