Why are liberals despertly trying to seperate the Iraqi Invasion and the War on Terror?

Question

Do they not realize that the Iraqi battlefield is part of the War on Terror? Do they not see that Iran is sandwhiched by 2 growing democracies on both sides? Why are dead iranian revolutionary guards being discovered in Iraq & Lebanon? Bush is addressing the root cause of terrorism and liberals choose to believe that we have caused the problems. That is why Iran is involved in all the terrorist activities in both Iraq & Lebanon.

Libs - you are so dead wrong about terrorist not being in Iraq before the invasion! Have you conviently forgotten the training camps of Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak OR do you just choose to ignore the facts. Salman Pak had a abandoned jet airliner that was used for training to take control of passengers on a jet airliner - and we all know that there no airliners used on 911 right?

Follow the link if you want the truth:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

Answer 1

Liberals think that they can solve any problem by talking about it. If they don't have facts, they use emotions to sway public opinion. No one wants to be in any war, but if you don't show that you will draw a line in the sand and make a stand, then every one will walk all over you. The liberals just don't understand that you can't negotiate with someone that wants to kill you. Until we can change their (liberals) minds they are the enemy among us.***We went to war with Iraq becuase Saddam would not comply with UN mandates. Saddam was giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bomers. How can anyone say that there were no terrorist in Iraq? Can you say Saddam?

Answer 2

The conflict on terrorism could be seen in a broader context. it relatively is a worldwide conflict on Islamic Fascism. Muslims are interior the leading fringe of this conflict, and got here to the worldwide interest as Islamic international locations became further and extra helpful. At this element Islam could come to a style no rely if or no longer is a non violent faith, or if it seeks to dominate the worldwide by utilising violence. The conflict for Iraqi Freedom is a factor of the conflict on Islamic Fascism. The Islamic Fascists decide for to regulate Iraq, the Sunnis decide for administration of Iraq, the Shia what administration of Iraq and the Kurd decide for to chop up and style their very own u . s . in Iraq. Whoever wins could have administration the the 2d greatest oil reserves interior the worldwide. The stakes are very great. If the Islamic Fascists win then the remainder of the middle east would be in political turmoil. So Iraqi has exchange right into a considerable participant interior the conflict on Terror. The liberals are out in Fantasyland and would't see previous their hatred for Bush/Chaney. If the Liberals win the Presidency next 3 hundred and sixty 5 days, then would be compelled to the two hand Iraq over to the Fascists or follow-up on the Bush plan.

Answer 3

Well, when we took Saddam out of power in Iraq we removed the safety valve for Iran. They were held in check by the Iraqi's not anymore. And BTW, if having nukes is really such a bad thing to have, why are we giving the tech to the Indians? Our government is set oon one thing their profits, plain and simple. It doesn't matter which side of the isle they sit on. Both parties want the same thing money. The two party system in this country is a mirage. They have the same global agendas and use social issues to drive a wedge in the populace in order to get more of their side into office. Neither of them would be handling the current situation any differently. But to answer the question, I guess they want to separate them because they aren't the same thing. If we wanted to get terrorists so badly then why are we not in Saudi Arabia, which is where most of the hijackers of the 9/11 attacks were from? Why Saddam's regime? The man ran a secular dictatorship that wanted nothing to do with religious zealots, in fact he had them killed. Why now? He was OK in the 80's when he was fighting on our side in the Iran Iraq war. It just doesn't make much sense, but maybe they have some shocking evidence for war that will show us in a few years, I doubt it though.

Answer 4

Because there were no Al Qaeda agents in Iraq at the time of the invasion. Five years after 9/11, the Bush administration and Republican Led Congress has failed to keep us safe. Osama Bin Laden has still not been found, and it doesn't look like any one is trying to find him since we are now bogged down with the Iraq War fiasco.The war in Iraq is diverting attention from Protecting America from real Terrorists, A sentiment the 9/11 Commission agrees with. now the war in Iraq has inflamed the whole Middle East and is helping Al Qaeda gather new recruits and sympathizers. Katrina showed us all that the Republicans cannot protect us at home and seems not to care to protect us at home. The Republican led congress has not followed through on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and now the Republican political attacks during last weeks terror threat are outrageous. The Republicans seem more interested in dirty
politics than really doing anything constructive about the terrorist threat. The politics of doing nothing until something bad happens and then blaming your opponent is not working. We need real leadership with real solutions not the games we are currently getting from the Republicans.

Answer 5

If you would PLEASE stop omiting a word here and there when you cut and paste my questions,I would appreciate that.

As you can tell by my answers,I am NOT hateful(eyes roll),and I hold decent,humane,lofty values that dispel any "twisted leftist agenda".

So quit lying about me,please.I said please.

The word is spelled "desperetly",as in "You are desperetly engaged in shameless character assasination to salvage the votes from your party now that the American voters have hade enough failures from the Republicans."

The Iraqi invasion was a pre-emptive strike,unrelated to the 9-11 attacks.This is why some consider the phrase "war on terror" a
deliberate misnomer.Some have reason to conside it a seperate issue on the part of the Bush Administration to finish the job that Bush 43 felt Bush 41 left unfinished.If that is in fact the case,using the single greatest attack from an enemy on domestic
soil to advance an agenda with personal motives,including looking for oil to enhance oil stocks,would be an impeachable offense.

Three years after the Invasion of Iraq,the country is largely in a shambles.Civil war and upwards of 100+ civilains a day are lost in a country that is really no more free now than it was then.
Bush even ADMITTED to went into Iraq on false intelligence,and yest he offers,as some say of Democrats,"no plan",except "stay the course",which is a code word for no plan.Another impeachable offense?

The "war on terror"is largely a neo-con term that does not imply
Democrats do not want the US to win.It implies that we are in the business of domesticating other countries,which has been a disaster,and laden with ulterior motives on Bush's part.

Answer 6

Son. Let me learn you a thing or two about Iraq and George Bush.

We were sold a bill of goods on Iraq. We were told there were WMDs in Iraq, we were told Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to the United States. We were scared with talk of mushroom clouds over Manhattan.

And that was just from the administration. Conservative pundits fanned the flames for rumors of Iraqi ties to Al Queda, and even today many Americans think Saddam was involved in September 11.

Thing is, none of this is true. There were no WMDs in Iraq. All Rick Santorum ever found were a few rusty canisters that posed more of a threat to the local groundwater than to the US. Saddam had no weapons capable of reaching the US, had no nuclear weapons of any kind (even those that could fit in a suitcase), and Osama and Saddam HATE EACH OTHER. In fact, the only terrorist group in Iraq before we invaded was plotting to kill Saddam.

They wanted to kill each other, and we should have let them. Instead, our troops are dying in Iraq while Al Queda and the Taliban are regaining strength in Afganistan, which was a just war and one that I supported wholeheartedly, BTW.

And no matter how much good our troops try to do in Iraq, people there will resent them and some will keep trying to kill them. Iraq was a powderkep just waiting for someone to light the fuse, with all the ethnic and religious divisions.

And your boy W just couldn't wait to get out his lighter.

As for the Iran problem: Those Iranians wouldn't be in Iraq right now if we hadn't invaded. Since we're stuck in Iraq, we are in a weaker position to deal with Iran, North Korea or any other country that actually poses a threat to us. Look up this phrase: Bogged Down.

In the end, Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator and needed to be taken down -- by someone else. We had, and still have, more important fish to fry. Where's Osama bin hiding all this time while Georgie plays war in Iraq?

The real threat has always been the organized terror networks like Al Queda. And we sent more than 150,000 troops and billions of dollars to the ONE COUNTRY they weren't hiding in.

Yeah, root cause. WTFE.

Answer 7

you have a poor working understanding of what is really going on.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Nothing. There was no threat from Saddam.

Not only have we created a traing ground in iraq but there is a civil war going on for power. in the end we either go, or stay and pick a side, thus trading Saddam a dictator for a new dicator, or we stay and let iraq form a new iran like government.

bush isn't addressing the root causes.....there is no talk of poverty of enforcing U.N mandates on Israel.


Your dishonest and misinformed.
seriously, take a fricken college course or something.

Answer 8

The big lie is being exposed isn't it? The Middle East is breeding terrorists because the Western world refuses to get the hell out of there and deal with real issues that affect the American people on a daily basis.
Issues like our dependence on foreign oil, global warming and climate change, the invasion of Illegal immigrants to fill the pockets of the right wing business men.
Simple minded people like you, refuse to believe that yet another American President has been bought off by the rich. Oil should not be the lifeblood of the USA. Technology should be. We have the technology to take on any problem that faces us as far as resources to fuel our cars and trucks. we just won't do it because the money is going overseas and down the toilet.

Answer 9

The war on terror is a joke, you might as well have a war on hurricanes, after all one "attacked" us last year. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and the administration knew that. Also the facts are that Bush was told that their were no WMD and didn't want to listen.
Where is Bin Ladin now???? Bin Ladin was a Saudi and his family has ties to the Bush family. That is a fact.

Answer 10

15 out of the 19 people involved with 9/11 attack were saudi not iraqi's. Iraq has been pinned by the US government as a hideout for terrorism which is supposed to justify the war, but thats not actually true. Ask the question, why did bush attack Iraq as part of the 'war on terror' but he cant find bin laden? and he admits he doesnt spend much time looking for him.