What is conservative about going to war against a country - Iraq - in order to do regime change?

Answer 1

You have to love sheeple like true2it.

Its all about them - the neocon sheeple who never question their government. They also ignore those in government who question the president and his minions:

"This fraudulent war has done such enormous damage to the reputation and prestige of the United States and its military forces." - James Ryan, Westpoint Alumni

"Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It’s a tactic...The notion of a global terror war also marginalizes and discriminates against Muslims and raises the specter of hypocrisy, because the U.S. itself uses terror as a tactic." -General William Odom, US

"I think the current administration repeatedly ignored sound military advice and counsel with respect to the war plans. I think that the principles of war are fundamental, and we violate those at our own peril. And military leaders of all ranks, particularly the senior military, have an obligation in a democracy to say something about it. " - Maj. General John Batiste, US

''We went to war with a flawed plan that didn't account for the hard work to build the peace after we took down the regime. We also served under a secretary of defense who didn't understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, and who didn't build a strong team." - Maj. General John Batiste, US

"Regardless of whose responsibility I think it is, somebody has screwed up. ... it should be evident to everybody that they've screwed up. And whose heads are rolling on this?" General Anthony Zinni, US

"We didn't have enough troops on the ground. We didn't impose our will. And as a result, an insurgency got started and ... got out of control." Former Secretary and General Colin Powell

We were told that we were to go there to disarm Hussein for WMD's. There were no WMD's. We were warned by people like Gen. Shinseki that is we were to invade, we would need several hundred thousand troops. Rumsfeld and company insisted doing it on the cheap with just over 100,000. That frugality on the part of this administration has cost the lives of nearly 3000 American soldiers. Nearly 20,000 American injuries. And over 500,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.

But then they played politics with the war when we were told that we were there to bring Democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people. These days, their civil war seems to indicate they don't want us there. The daily bombings and in-fighting show they want to kill each other. Yet, despite the warnings, we have people in this administration who ignored the threats that sectarian violence would ensue after an invasion. And when you look back, we essentially disobeyed the UN to invade a country for disobeying the UN. That was the excuse.

So where is your party handbook, true2it?

When you have scores of generals and other military personelle coming out day by day to expose the gross incompetence and negligence of this administration, how does it feel in your cold hands? Does the book get heavy? Does the book cause you any pain as soldiers die by the day and go nameless on the tv because there are too many to count?

Or do you tear pages out as you accuse others of doing to fit your own twisted agenda. Have you looked recently at the chapter in your book that outlines the unconditional allegiance you should have for a president who could care less about the men and women who serve in uniform like the ones mentioned above?

Answer 2

You have to love libs like snowshoe. Its all about them. We aren't sacrificing soldiers to help Iraqi's, we aren't in Iraq to fight terrorism so snowshoe can drive his SUV all over town. No, we are there so GW can get a regime change going. Your question is a great one snowshoe, you ultra-lib you. Why the hell would we be wasting time in Iraq for a regime change? We wouldn't. There is your answer you mindless parrot you. Go back and ready the party handbook again. Your missing some pages.

Answer 3

It "conserved" millions more mass graves from being dug and filled with political opponents, and "conserved" women from being raped by Saddam's sons.

As our soldiers went to war, your fervent prayer was to see President Bush look bad at any cost. In your perfect liberal world, Saddam would still be hacking off limbs and shooting families of those who whispered against him, committing genocide and holding the U.N. and the rest of the world by the short hairs.

Answer 4

Bush replaced into no conservative. you need to truly get exhilaration from having a awful economic gadget and being hopelessly in debt. have exciting with that. My grandchildren easily won't have exciting with it. in certainty, he's destroying their futures. yet he's black so he gets a bypass from you dimwits. Its greater exciting to call conservatives racists than this is to examine the chilly complicated certainty of what something of your existence would be like because of this rotten president. i do no longer think of you will locate it to be so humorous a kind of days anymore than I do. i will hearken to you at the instant. My existence is ruined yet he replaced into black so its ok. a minimum of no person can call you a racist because of the fact you probably did no longer choose your u . s . a . to grow to be Greece.

Answer 5

Remember Pearl Harbor?

Answer 6

Because that is not the reason we went to war.

We went to war for many things, and while that may be one of them, it is not the full picture

Answer 7

I don't know if it is Conservative or not. It depends on whose definition of conservative you use. I have no doubt that it makes our country & the world safer, so I support it.

Answer 8

What is logical about making things up off of the top of your head and trying to put a label on them?

Answer 9

To do "regime change"? Ha!

Answer 10

Almost everything.