> Look, PLEASE end this!

It takes two to tango.

> Bush isn't that bad. I did insult him, and I don't like him, but he is an OK president, alright?

This isn't really about Bush. Some of the people who have replied to you don't even like him. The problem is a blatant denial of established, proven facts. Whether or not we should go to war is debatable, but Hussein's track record for crimes of inhumanity is not. If you question it, it's because you are not educated in the very things you are speaking about.

You make accusations that the American public is brainwashed by our politicians and the media, and yet your apparent source for your opinions is "a newspaper article." Newspaper articles about Iraq and Saddam Hussein are published every day in thousands of papers these days. And that only covers contemporary events. There is also over 13 years of relevant history to build upon. And there is more than what our government is telling us: the testimonies of Iraqi defectors, U.N. inspectors, other world leaders, and so forth.

I can't speak for anybody else in this, but the source of my own frustration with your posts is a failure to recognize basic history. I mean, it's ok not to know something. I am *not* well versed on current affairs, really -- when I was posting my first reply to you, TOM and Stephen were posting more informed ones. But I don't make up facts or deny facts that other people tell me are verifiable without verifying them. Refraining from these things is part of basic debate protocol. You can't expect a productive conversation to result if one or more of the parties to it are fabricating or denying verifiable facts. Another thing that might help -- and I'll be the first to admit I need more of this from time to time, too -- is some humility. In debates, few really believe they might be wrong, but it's good form to pretend.

I'm not saying any of this to be mean. I'm explaining why the conversation devolved as it did and why you aren't being taken seriously.