Why do liberals disagree with the Iraqi war?

Question

Is it because Bush wanted to go to war with them? Or if Bill Clinton decided to do this would all of them support the war right now?

obviously Miss. Bliss

Humanist, tell me what USA stole from Iraq? We stole their dictator and gave them freedom. Is that bad?

did Nneka and Miss Bliss just use the same choice of words and arugement in a the exact same minute?
*x files music*

Brian D., evidence of WMDs are there plus all those chemical weapons found.

And what do you mean when the world chided us? When did the world ask for us to remove saddam?

Humanist:

No oil was stolen from Iraq. This is a proven fact, if we wanted oil we would've taken it from Kuwait years ago. Then we would hav eall the oil we need
never mind the high oil prices currently on.

Nneka, seek help. You begin by saying you're a conservative who disagrees with the war. Then you edit it later and you begin personally inuslting me. Grow up.

Answer 1

The Iraqi war was initiated by the Republicans and the Liberals are against it due to party platforms. The Liberals will always attacked the actions and decisions of their rivals.

Answer 2

Hey, Flash the Virus. Yeah you're a virus allright. You're just like the plague of igrnorance that continues to sweep this country, a plague of biblical proportions.

Your statement, "evidence of WMDs are there plus all those chemical weapons found" Really now? Hmmm..show me a source, one source, an independent, verifiable source that proves that statement. I want empirical evidence. Do you even know what empirical evidence is, you ignoramus?

The IAEA, the Brits, the Spanish, the Aussies, the Japanese all of which are a part of Bush's coalition of the willing as well the US State Department, and the US Supreme Allied Commander of the in Iraq (you know the guy who gives press confrences from that 5-sided buildiing?) have all confirmed, in several published reports, that there is no evidence of a WMD program other than one blueprint from a factory that was never built. And these plans are from 1979. Oh, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, you know Bush's cabinet of evil, has said numerous times that there was no new evidence of chemical weapon manufacturing other than the evidence that they had when Saddam gassed the Kurds in the mid eighties.

You're not very bright, or very well read for that matter. Perhaps you should pick up a book once in awhile. And I don't mean Everybody Poops.

Answer 3

I disagree with the war because it was not planned out very well. There was no exit strategy from the beginning. It will now be a long term committment by the United States. It has diverted attention from the real goal of getting bin laden and al qaeda. It has completely destabalized the entire region. Iran and Iraq have been bitter enemies for a long time and their rivalry kept each of them in check. With Iraq out of the way, Iran is free to do as they will and they will try to hurt the US, however they can. Invading Iran now is not an option since we do not have the military resourses to do so and with our credibility shot to hell in international politics, we cannot expect help from anybody else.

Bill Clinton would have thought this through a little more. Taking out a brutal dictator like Saddam is usually considered a good thing, but in this cause the alternative may be worse. Freeing the people of Iraq from Saddam I don't feel was ever the responsibility of the US. And now instead of Saddam killing them, they are just killing each other.

Answer 4

Well, I think liberals disagree with the war because it was waged under false pretenses. It was supposedly to prevent proliferation of WMD's and to eliminate a "terrorist fairhaven." WMD's are far more of a problem in N Korea and Iran then it ever was in Iraq, since it was questionable whether they even had the beginnings of a nuclear program up and running.

As for Iraq being a terrorist fairhaven, I'm not sure how true that was before the war, but it sure is now!

Everyone goes around kind of chanting "no blood for oil" or "the war's all about oil." I'm not one for buying into hype. But in this case, it is true. America is built on an infrastructure totally dependant on crude oil. The supply is slipping steadily, and more importantly, the demand is exploding as a result of 3rd world countries coming into their own as developed petro-economies. Ultimately there will be a major crisis, and something's going to have to give. When that change occurs, America may not come out on top as it has over the past 50 years because our infrastructure will be obsolete. Understandably, the Bush administration would rather see that happen in someone else's lifetime, and they can achieve that by opening up the Iraqi reserves (the largest untapped accessible reserves in the world) and creating a pipeline from the Aegean Sea region to the Persian Gulf to open up more supply.

It's an economic move... but a very costly one in terms of lives. I think the standard liberal view is that, rather than resorting to thuggery to lock down the world's oil supply, we should lead the world in developing alternate energy sources and remain fair players in the global economy, even if we may lose the top spot somewhere down the road. Sure, everyone wants to win, but do you sabotage your opponent and cheat to do so? No. If all losing means is a decrease in standard of living (only one SUV per family) then I think it might not be worth all of the lives lost and enemies won to battle over energy reserves.

I think that's the gist of the liberal platform on this matter.

Answer 5

a million. human beings from the south are frequently republican and subsequently, there is more effective help there for this war. 2. all those who's in Iraq has the right to favor to come back homestead. only because your associates have a good time with it does no longer recommend each and every person else is having an fantastically good time. 3. The Iraqis who like the human beings are an fantastically good minority, it truly is why you do not often see it on the records. also, each and every of the suicide bombers and insurgencies make for more effective information, it is the nature of the marketplace. P.S. There aren't any "communist" information networks. 4. maximum liberals do not supply a flying f*** about Michael Moore. We especially a lot imagine he sucks too. i imagine your thoughts are valid, yet you're so very indignant. you want to keep in mind there is yet another part to each and every tale.

Answer 6

It is not about being liberal or conservative. It is about being smart or impulsive. Clinton would have never made a mistake that big. He would have gotten international support first and then would have gone in as an united front. I don't think he would have fabricated evidence or at least followed fake evidence about the WMD that were never found in Iraq.
If Clinton would have follow the same path as Bush, I could never support him. It is about doing the right thing. I don't know, call me an idealist when I think that people will actually do what's right after the evidence proves to be right or true.

Answer 7

Let's see, off the top of my head, I disagree with invading Iraq because:

1/ there were no WMD, Bush et al made that up so they could get us into a war

2/ Most 9/11 hijackers were Saudi's - why attack Iraq?

3/ The Saudi Arabian royal family, Iran, Libya, Syria and others all support Al Qaeda, more than Iraq did.

4/ If Human Rights was our concern, there are at lease 10 world leaders that have worse human rights violations than Saddam Hussein, if that was our concern, go after those leaders first (but we didn't go after the others because of they don't have oil like Iraq).

5/ It's all about the oil, baby! Bush and Cheney are oilmen, and since they've been in power, oil related interests have been off the scale economically speaking. Look at the big 3 oil co's profits from gouging Americans and tell me there's no connection. Supply and demand? Yeah, right!

6/ If GW is nursing a grudge from daddy's days against Saddam, well that's not a good reason for war, either.

7/ We had a lot more diplomatic options we could have explored before we chose to attach a sovereign nations without UN and most of our allies support.

8/ Most of the highest ranking military officers were against it. Since they are more educated in many ways including war strategy, and they think it is a bad idea, why wouldn't he heed their advice.

Its just way too much self serving macho, and too little brains--- I hope in 2008 don't have to endure another Bush administration (JEB Bush)- One is about all the US can survive
And, no, I don't want Hillary either.

Just once in my lifetime, I would like the chance to choose from good qualified candidates with a brain, morals, ethics, and good business sense, instead of choosing the lesser of two evils.

PS- To answer your Bill Clinton question, he wouldn't have been stupid enough to get us into this war unless there were a lot of interns there for him to "meet and greet". And, since I'm not his wife, I could give a RAT's ___ who he sleeps with... long as he did a good job as president, and in my book, HE DID!

Answer 8

Let's see: Faulkty and outright fake intelligence on WMDs. We haven't found any of them. Since this bad Intel was exposed the rational for the war has changed.

Answer: Where are the WMD's? Why was an obviously false link between 9/11-Saddam implied?

The US aided Saddam during his worst killing sprees, heck Rumsfeld was our meet-and-greet guy. When the world chided us for helping him we ignored it. Now the guys we paid Saddam to fight for nearly a decade have some power in Iraq.

Answer 9

Because in general, Liberals are pacifist. They prefer the diplomatic route. They would have given Iraq a thousand years, and a million U.N. resolutions and still would not have taken decisive action as long as a Conservative was president. If you disagree explain why Liberals were against Operation Desert Storm, but were mum on the Bosnia/Kosovo conflicts?

Answer 10

Bush only has support of about 40 percent of his own party.
The 60 percent of Republicans that will vote Democratic have your answer. Personally I could care less about Clinton. I did not vote for him but he has been made very wealthy by those who hate him.