No, Iraq was not a threat to our freedom, the only threat is Bush, which is why there are protests.
2006-08-10 12:10:22
·
answer #1
·
answered by RATM 4
·
4⤊
1⤋
Lots of people that I might consider liberal from Thomas Jefferson to JFK to Franklin D. Roosevelt to Martin Luther King didn't back down from a fight and are not the kind of people I would characterize as scared or wussies. As others have undoubtedly pointed out by now, liberals (and lots of other people across the political spectrum) expect our government to obey the laws and the constitution they are sworn to uphold. It's really not that much to ask of our elected representatives and when they don't it's not just bad for our country, it's bad for the whole world for whom we are trying to set a good example. I am a liberal and proud to say it and I also served as an officer in the U.S. Army so, I know you aren't calling me a wussy who is scared of fighting for my freedom... are you? Go ahead and say it to my face, I dare you.
2006-08-10 19:30:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by bluenote2k 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
"They are scared of fighting for their freedom so they always wanna back off like a bunch of wussies." According to who?
I don't see *you* over in Iraq fighting, instead I see you hiding behind your computer picking fights. Hmmm, who is the wussie?
2006-08-10 19:13:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
This liberal is very scared of what this country has become. The United States has garnered worldwide hatred and resentment and has lost any credibility under the current administration.
Millions of people worldwide call the United States, "Big Satan". That hardly fits in with the way the conservative Chritian Right wants to believe.
What will be the ultimate outcome of American rapacity and imperialism with no regard for human life? Nothing good comes of evil.
2006-08-10 19:21:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I am scared
US deficit USD 300+ BBBillions
Highest jobless rates since 1994
Veterans benefits cut
Education cut
"Clear Skies Initiative" allows MORE poison in to our atmosphere
"Patriot Act" limits freedom
"Free-Speech-Zones" at conventions
No armor for the soldiers
2000+ dead soldiers in Iraq
40'000+ dead civilians in Iraq
distortion and lies to start a war with a new invented reason every three months, but ultimately to get oil
but plans for war are non-existent or completely utter cowboy bs
Oil price USD 75.- (was below USD 23.- in 2000 !!!!!!!!)
illegal prisons
illegal torture
illegal depleted uranium ammunition
illegal wiretapping
illegal searches of payment records
Iraq now breeding place for terrorists
Bin Laden is where???
everyone wants an atombomb to defend from the USA
WORLD IS LESS SAFER SINCE BUSH IN OFFICE
2006-08-10 19:18:16
·
answer #5
·
answered by FF 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
No. They just want governments to follow their own laws.
As far as the war in Iraq, that's simple business planning. You compare the costs of a plan against the benefits and you decide if it's worth it. Bush is the Decider, and he made his decision.
However, unlike any other sensible leader, he's unwilling to revisit that decision four years later taking into account everything that has been learned and everything that has happened during that time. So he blindly carries through with the decisions he made years ago, regardless of whether they are the right decisions now.
Those people who are calling for change are merely being rational, by evaluating the current situation and deciding now what is best for America from here forward.
And isn't that what a representative democracy is supposed to do?
2006-08-10 19:11:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
6⤊
1⤋
Without liberals there would be no freedom. Do you really think our founding fathers were not liberals? Didn't they liberate themselves from tyranny in England? Didn't liberals give women the right to vote? Didn't liberals help bring about civil rights? Here is the definition of Liberal to help you understand:
of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
and
marked by generosity : OPENHANDED b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c : AMPLE, FULL
and
not literal or strict : LOOSE
BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
2006-08-10 19:15:57
·
answer #7
·
answered by rain2snw 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
I like to think ALL people want what is best for our countries and liberals simply think a withdrawal is in our best interest. I am not a politician so how do I know what is the best course for the country? I don't, that is why I have faith in our leaders to do the right thing and if they seem to not be doing whats best, we elect someone else and see if he can do it. By the way, I despise political parties in any form and think they are causing ALL our problems we have. Am I a hypocrite?
2006-08-10 19:15:26
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
John Kerry a liberal fought in Vietnam, George Bush a conservative went AWOL, from the Privileged Senators Corp unit of the National Guard
2006-08-10 19:14:09
·
answer #9
·
answered by martin 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
What situation are you referring to when you talk about fighting for freedom? I have the feeling its the war in Iraq you speak of. Did anything going on Iraq truly threaten the freedom of Americans? Not even close. So what is there to fight for?
2006-08-10 19:20:08
·
answer #10
·
answered by forrest_rain 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
You'd be scared to if you had the brains to see that a Texified, inbred, self-righteous, political puppet with delusions of Armageddon and an I.Q. of 38 is the commander-in-thief of the largest military in the world!!!
2006-08-10 19:13:29
·
answer #11
·
answered by Whoops, is this your spleeen? 6
·
2⤊
0⤋