Paper against Bush

[rarnom]

Unlike you, I can differentiate between a fist fight and a war (well, not technically a 'war' in the legal sense, but one nonetheless). No, I am NOT a hypocrite for wanting to get into a fist fight and not wanting to send our troops to Iraq, because I recognize them as being two fundamental things and you can spare me the freudian crap that what I do in my personal life is how I think about real world situations.

So what does it take then for war to be 'o.k.' with you? If we actually did find WMD's then would you think the war was then a good idea? Is it only o.k. to start a war after we have been attacked on our soil? You can't have it both ways. You responding to a threat with another threat of violence is exactly the same thing. It is all about the mentality. I agree that the differences you noted about people dying and collateral damage are going to be obviously different. But it is the principal that is the same. You are responding to a threat. The US responded to a threat.
Here is another quote to show that at least one other person here agrees with my reasoning:

actually, threatening to respond to violence with violence is exactly how things escalate... especially if you are saying you will "fuck someone up" just for threatening you.

That sounds a lot like Bush attacking Iraq due to the threat of WMDs.
There was no attack from Iraq to provoke an invasion. It was just the threat of WMDs that mobilized the allied forces agains Saddam.

I guess if we look up to our world leaders then this is the right approach to take.

It is all about what your behavior and your actions say. I am sure you are convinced you are not a hypocrite, but very little in your mentality and attitudes about violence and personal conflict resolution seem to convince me otherwise. So you will have to live with the fact that at least one person thinks you are a hypocrite.