2006-09-19 09:41:05 · 19 answers · asked by Shiraz!! 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Good question. 'Peace' at the cost of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives seems, to them, preferable to fighting back against brutal tyranny.
During the 1990s, UNICEF reported that between 5,000 and 6,000 children were being killed in Iraq each month due to malnutrition and lack of medicine. They don't count adult victims. Saddam was splurging the Oil for Food money on building palaces instead of its intended purpose.
Somehow, stopping Saddam's murderous 'peace' infuriated the Leftists. Perhaps because he was the Leftist strongman in the Middle East?
Some liberals think that the lives of brutal Leftist or Islamist oppressors are as sacred as the lives of the children they throw into the plastic shredders or whose heads they smash open in front of their parents. I disagree completely.
2006-09-19 09:43:46 · answer #1 · answered by speakeasy 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋
and where is bin Laden again? we've lost 3,000 lives (much more than any liberal ever has) and it's still not a priority for bush? and you're talking about liberals?
when you START trying to get bin Laden... then you can START talking sh*t and not be a total hypocrite
willys56c: liberals like Republicans during WWII that you mention? liberals like Tom Delay who wanted to cut and run from Bosnia?
yeah... you're right... those guys are retarded...
2006-09-19 10:00:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Not just Bin Laden, mind you. Our history is filled with liberals who do not want to fight any just cause. There were many liberals who kept pressure to prevent the U.S. from joining the fight against Hitler. Only when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor did we get involved. Isn't it funny how history repeats itself and it takes something like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 to get us to fight evil?
2006-09-19 09:49:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Not nearly as many innocent lives as in other parts of the world as a result of america's overly-aggressive assault on virtually everyone. Thousands upon thousands of innocents in coutries ranging from the Sudan, to Central America, to Iraq and Afghanistan have needlessly died in the name of American Imperalism. And this has been going on practiacally non-stop since the Reagan Era. So it isn't just republicans, since Clinton was largely responsible for the slaughter in the Sudan.
2006-09-19 09:55:22 · answer #4 · answered by Mr. Pink 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
thousands of lives have been lost as a direct result of the war on terror.
Us forces, along with the northern alliance had bin laden cornered, but he was allowed to escape into pakistan. why?
bush and bin laden have very close ties, and of course, if bin laden remains free, that gives the us military the excuse to trample all over the middle east, in the name of freedom.
check out the jersey girls for more info.
2006-09-19 09:47:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
Actually....how is this the Liberals fault? Sometimes your logic ceases to Amaze me.... Please clear this up, because there are some things I do not understand.
1) How exactly did we let Osama go?
2.)What sickness do Liberals have?
3.) Why do you Bash Liberals?
2006-09-19 12:36:19 · answer #6 · answered by Angel of Man 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Far too many! But let's remember, Clinton and the other liberals had very good reasons for not taking him before he wrought his destruction. Bush and his people are just lazy, stupid people who should've taken care of this before Bush was ever elected. Everything is Bush's fault, right?
2006-09-19 09:44:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Wait a minute, I thought everything was Bush's fault. The war, hurricanes, floods, global warming, gas prices, terrorism,red tide,air polution,depleted ozone layer,super novas, etc.etc. you know, EVERYTHING.
2006-09-19 09:46:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
you annoying fiend! you were too scared to look back at the post i made on your Clinton question. well since you are too scared to be wrong i will show you what i said.
p.s. Shiraz-Syrah! you ignorant conservative...
i wasn't talking about Bin Laden. the first to attempt the bombings in 93 was Ramzi Yousef and his group who were financed by Al-Qaeda! not Al-Qaeda themselves! and thanks to Clinton they were caught and arrested. GET INFORMED!!!!!!!!
2006-09-19 10:11:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
None, Liberals don`t change our ways to FEEL safer like the over religious feared out Conservatives that don`t spend that much time on him. Lets not forget Bush did not hold one anti terrorist meeting before 911 and it did happened under his watch.
2006-09-19 09:47:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋