Question for liberals?

Question

Do you think it is possible for more than one factor to be taken into consideration before making a decision?

For instance, do you think we are liberating Iraq for more than one reason? I know you like to scream oil (although we havn't gotten any oil from there), but is it possible that when you compile all the reasons together, they say that it needed to be done?
A few examples, WMD, Murderous regime, Aiding terrorists, etc..

I want to know why you liberals can't see what is obvious to most people. you want to dwell on one specific thing. you say things like, "saddam hasn't murdered anyone for years", so thats not a reason.

Add all the reasons up, and if you can still tell me we shouldn't have liberated the people there, you are flat out lying.

g, get your head out of the sand, WMD did/ do exist, and some have been found, and you know that. Stop spreading lies.

g you have no logic. you avoided the question, and made a lie while you did so.

G,
They were STILL CONSIDERED WMD, so don't say there were none there. Just because we have not discovered the specific weapons they were looking for.

those weapons you said were not destroyed (and not burried, they were in a bunker) like saddam said he had done. Furthermore, the U.N. inspectors did not find them, so why do you think it is so difficult to believe that they couldn't find the others? Why don't you think they could have been moved, he only had a week notice before we entered Iraq.

"A) He spends far too much"--- I agree, he spent way too much on all those social programs that clinton cut funding to

B) He lies every time his lips move---show me one lie
C) He is a religious bigot---He is religious. He is not a bigot. All libs can do is call him names.
D) He has already gotten a lot of people killed---no, the terrorists did that. Bush has given a chance of life to thousands upon thousands of people who wouldn't have had one without him.
E) He steals from his own countrymen---Explain this one please
F) He has broken numerous laws---name one
G) The Democrats haven't fielded a decent choice since Clinton.---clinton was the most corrupt president in the history of the whitehouse.

Answer 1

Okay for the serious, no b.s. answers, here you go.

Yes, just as you most likely researched this yourself, no joking intended, you came to your decision to support this was based on the facts presented I came to an obviously different outlook.

There are many reasons, both stated and not, for invading the Republic of Iraq.

Oil reserves? Possibly a bonus to the outcome rather than a reason.

Revenge? Very likely. Since it has been stated by several former Bush Administration officials that Bush was very interested in seeking revenge on Saddam for his failed assassination attempt on his father. Could you blame him?

Neo-con belief in the "spread of democracy" in the Middle East? Good chance. It is a core belief of the Neo-Con outlook that Israel will be safer if theocracies and monarchies in the Middle East are replaced with liberal leaning secular authorities. But Saddam was one of those, socially liberal.

Terrorists? Most likely not. It has never been proven; even slightly that Al-Qaeda was supported by either Iran or Iraq. To the point that Iran offered a bounty on Bin Laden's head after 9-11.

Murderous Regime? True, Saddam will not go down as a benevolent dictator, but we had known this for 30 years, why the great outrage now? There are worse places still in the world.

WMD. Okay, the only weapons of this grade found had deteriorated beyond an operational usefulness. So this was a fear tactic. And when we knew Iran and North Korea had them, but their regimes are still in power and one with nuclear weapons.

A central base of military operation in the Middle East? Good idea, centrally located and with good access to everyone else. Like Germany with less trees.

As for do these reasons all add up to sending in 170,000 soldiers, no. We had a chance for them to liberate themselves in 1992 and we did not help them. We sold them down the river and this Saddam issue was an internal Iraqi issue. We had no business or new reason to go in.

So, I had done my research and beyond misplaced "we kick ***" patriotism, I saw no reason to get bogged down in a 1500 year old ménage tois, between Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites. Would you like to get in a three way with them and you and all your friends in the the middle?

I hope that helped.


In 1992, the United States Secretary of Defense during the war, Dick Cheney, made the same point:

"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Answer 2

These WMD that you're referring to are not what you think. What they found were useless weapons, the ones Saddam claimed he destroyed before the war.

"Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war.""

That Fox News story wasn't true, and was in fact old news.

As for aiding terrorists, Iraq under Saddam was more liberal than its neighboring countries, and do you think the Islamic extremists with Bin Laden were happy about this? They did not cooperate with each other at all.

Now, I'm not saying Saddam was a good guy, but relative to the other countries in the region and in the entire world, there were much more credible threats. Like Saudi Arabia, but we have so many business contracts with them it's ridiculous.

As for liberating them, well, they're in a much worse situtation now, and the Iraq occupation and its surrounding conflicts is only adding fuel to terrorism, because to them, it's only proving how horrible they think we are.

Don't go insulting people when you are so very uninformed. In this age with instant information available, there's no excuse to hold such positions based on evidence that can't be counted as evidence at all.

Answer 3

I think people got mad that they felt that they were lied to. I know that you obviously don't believe that there were any lies, but if you really had an open mind you would see that this is just as logical as your position. Obviously you either believe what the government tells you, or you don't believe it. There isn't really any proof we can provide other than what is in the news or is told to us by politicians. For example, I can't point to Iraq and say, see no WMD! Just like you can't really point to anything that definately shows WMD.

Same thing with terrorists. None of the 9/11 guys were from Iraq, and we really haven't had any other Middle Eastern terrorists since the first Trade Center bombing, which also didn't involve Iraqis.

So you can go through all of the reasons given leading up to the war (add them up or not) and see that people either believe the gov or not. That explains the liberal reasoning.

To sum it up, they are angry about being lied to, whether that is true or not.

The real question is why do you trust the government so much? And why do you believe everything you are told?

Answer 4

obvious to most people? where are these people?

there are no WMD... there are very thin terror links (which is a very pathetic excuse you could use to invade every middle eastern country)... so you're left with the regime (which again you could use for almost every middle eastern, southeast asian and african country)...

there is more reason in the Sudan... both people MANY more people dying and MANY more links to terror... and probably more WMD (more than 0 wouldn't be hard)

but don't let my logic get in your way

LET ME CLARIFY, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE SUBJECT (CONSERVATIVES)...

there are no WMD that have been manufactured since the first gulf war, which are the ones that Bush cited as a reason to invade...

of course there are some that they buried in the sand after the first gulf war... it was the ones he used in the Iran/Iraq war that we gave him... good job on finding those...

The White House and DOD said that the WMD you are talking about were not the ones that were cited in the cause for war...

I DIDN'T KNOW YOU HAD SUCH A SMALL IDEA ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON AND I HAD TO SPECIFY EVERY SMALL ITEM I SAID...

the only lie here is that some seem to think that the WMD you are reffering to were the reason that we went to war... you and the White House may want to get on the same page...

oh and to answer the question... of course it's possible... but it helps when all the facts actually are viable and make sense...

Answer 5

I think technically I'm a leftist, but I'll answer under the Liberal banner, because I know it makes you pea-brained rednecks feel better about you oh so tiny johnsons.
Yes, it is possible. That's how we make decisions such as, "should I vote for George Bush?"
A) He spends far too much
B) He lies every time his lips move
C) He is a religious bigot
D) He has already gotten a lot of people killed
E) He steals from his own countrymen
F) He has broken numerous laws
G) The Democrats haven't fielded a decent choice since Clinton.

Answer 6

C'mon, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Don't give me or anyone else that crap that you say about the "liberal media." You have FOX News, The Washington Post, and Rupert Murdoch in your pocket, so you can't say that you didn't have the media beside you. There was absolutely no link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, the government eventually admitted that afterwards. The point is that you used the WMD's and Al-Qaeda link as an excuse to go to war. Now apparently that's not the case and we are "spreading freedom." You simply don't change your purpose and reason to go to war in the middle of all that chaos. The Bush administration completely lost its credibility (or what was left of it) when that happened, and that is why I am pissed.

Answer 7

For once, a Repub has posted a reasonable question in polite terms. I can only speak for myself, but here goes:

Yes, Saddam was a terrible tyrant and the people are better off without him. However, there are terrible tyrants all over and we cannot go after all of them. Syria, N. Korea, Saudi Arabia, and others have terrible repressive leaders, but we cannot save the world. Look at what has happened since we have gone into Iraq. Is life better for those people or are they even worse off because the terrorists have increased in number tenfold in reaction to our invasion? Their daily lives are filled with terror because of the constant warfare and now civil war has broken out. The Shiites and the Sunnis are fighting each other for control. Perhaps some countries are unable to function as a democracy because the idea is so foreign to them. What has been the reaction of the world including our allies to our incursion? We are now hated by almost every country. Overall, was it worth it to spend billions to liberate Iraq from a dictator? Was it worth the lives, American and Iraq, that have been lost? In my honest opinion, no. We should have gone into Afghanistan after Bin Laden instead and cut off the head of the snake so it would no longer grow. And please remember, my friend, we are all American. "United we stand; divided we fall." "One nation under God, indivisible". Thank you for being civil.

Answer 8

properly, lessee. a million#- i'm professional determination. i'm a guy, so i have not had an abortion. My spouse miscarried, and that sucked. yet I nevertheless imagine that determination is as a lot because the lady, her clinical professional and HER beliefs. #2- i imagine you would possibly want to personal each and each and every of the guns you want. I also imagine guns must have a identify so in the adventure that they are utilized in a criminal offense, the possession of the gun ought to correctly be traced decrease back to the way it were given into the fingers of a criminal. i do not hunt, yet venison is high quality. I grew up on a Dairy farm and characteristic butchered extra cows than you've likely eaten. #3- i'm an Atheist. For my personal causes. and that i'm likely extra moral than you, as i do not randomly accuse and choose human beings on little or no tips. #4- Spelling is powerful. It facilitates placed across your message obviously. what's incorrect with that? #5- i'm on drugs for melancholy. SO.... i wager my opinon of myself ought to apply some artwork. idea i attempt to apply good judgment and reason over knee jerk reactions. #6- See #5. My little woman is on no meds. How do we've intense evaluations of ourselves if we are depressed? that is slightly an contridiction. #7-Yep. when I die, that's going to likely be a lot like how I remember it in the previous i became born. i'm no longer making plans on any omnipotent powers. #8-i do not trust i have used any foul language and characteristic tried to apply impecable deductive reasoning. #9- See #2. Dairy farm. Meat is yummy. thanks for the quiz. Lemme understand in case you ever have a question. Have a awesome day.

Answer 9

I wholeheartedly expect you to support the invasion several other countries in this world. America cannot play world's police without the consent of the global population. We aren't the only country on this planet. And if you believe that the US is the only country that matters, I'm sorry but that makes you a sad, sad individual.

I'm sick of this liberal vs conservative battle. It's things like this that make me see how blind faith and mob mentality can become a dangerous combination.

Answer 10

No point in arguing the specifics on why we went to war in Iraq. You have already decided that any opposing opinion is a lie, you said as much yourself.

Why then did you ask a question you had already answered yourself?