Why can't liberals understand we are fighting this war because we were ATTACKED?

Question

WE WERE ATTACKED ON 911.

Terrorists TRAIN in Iraq. THAT is why we are there. They are a threat.

How can you NOT understand this? Everyone wants the troops HOME and NO ONE likes to fight wars. You liberals want us to fight in Dafur and no one from that country attacked US or WANTS to attack us. The Islamic Terrorists STILL want to destroy the USA. How come that does not sink in?

No COUNTRY attacked us BUT -ts- is right - we got a lot of higher up terrorists in IRAQ, AND if they are there NOW fighting us we HAVE to fight them back.
Makes sense to me...

Answer 1

I guess you got your answer! They would rather manufacture conspiracies then support our nation's war.

Answer 2

Everyone INCLUDING the US Government has admitted that Saddam Hussain had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

The only two terrorist groups training in Iraq before the US invasion were both in the Kurdish controlled areas (i.e. not under Saddam Hussain's control). Neither were connected with Al-Qu'eda, and neither had the inclination or the resources to attack US interests.

Osama Bin Laden had publically called Saddam Hussain an apostate (a crime punishable by death in Islam) and called for his overthrow. Given Saddam Hussain was interested in keeping hold of power at all costs, the chances of him teaming up with Bin Laden are about as high as the US teaming up with Bin Laden (although... the US did supply weapons and training to both Iraq and Bin Laden in the 1980s. Oh the irony!). Saddam Hussain kept a very tight raign on Islamic groups in Iraq and only a small number of moderate harmless groups were permitted. Any radicals were harshly dealt with.

It was only AFTER the US invasion that Al-Qu'eda has moved into Iraq (again admitted by the Bush Administration as well as congressional committes and the Baker commission). The war on Iraq has diverted men, money and resources away from fighting Al-Qu'eda and finding Bin Laden and has in fact served as one of the best recruiting sergeants for a new generation of Islamic terrorists. It has recently been admitted by both the US and UK Governments that the invasion of Iraq has actually INCREASED the risk of terrorism.

You say we shouldn't fight in Darfur because in Sudan attacked the US or WANTS to attack you. Why then did the US attack a country which, only months before 9/11, the Bush Administration has said was not a threat and was contained?

BTW, there is a very good case to intervene in Darfur because there is a genocide going on as we speak. People are being murdered and driven out of their homes because they're black and the Government is arabic.

Answer 3

There hasn't been any evidence. I agree that we needed to invade Afghanistan because of the possibility of Bin Laden being there. I supported the war on Iraq at the beginning but now I regret that I ever did. I'm not a liberal and for you to assume that only liberals are against the war is ludicrous. Tucker Carlson is a well-known conservative and he opposes the war. Bush said we went into Iraq for WMDs, then because of potential links to Al-quaida. Now, he says for democracy for people that don't even know what democracy is. That is why I'm against it now. Most people there hate us and a civil war is imminent and we might have to be allies with Iran and Syria in order to control Iraq. Why are we making a deal with the devil? Iran is evil and has been known to help terrorists. Bin Laden attacked us on 9/11 and where is he? Don't forget most 9/11terrorists were from Saudia Arabia, our longtime ally.

Answer 4

on the right there are not any "liberals" or "conservatives". they're all working for the comparable goals this is the employer of a international government. Bush became controlled via then Federal reserve, Rockefeller and his cronies on wall street and so is obama and the different president in view that woodrow wilson signed the federal reserve act in 1913. did you recognize that the super bankers tried to establish a coup and oust FDR to establish a fascist dictatorship till now we entered worldwide conflict 2? look up Smedely Butler, he's the ordinary they tried to get to steer the coup yet he became a patriot so he pretended to flow alongside with it till he had sufficient counsel to tell congress. The bankers in contact by no ability have been given in any hassle the two which ought to allow you recognize ways effective they are easily. Its been the comparable households in value of the federal reserve because of the fact the begining. they're in fact like the mafia, in basic terms extra effective. Politics is a large pastime of excellent cop vs undesirable cop so as that the front adult men are people who take the warmth and yet another puppet is presented in to take his place jointly as the comparable human beings in the back of the curtain proceed to be and make the surely judgements. The president's activity is to sell the strategies to the ordinary public and act like he's the guy who's on top of issues to shelter the real powers that be. as quickly as human beings initiate hating the president and he's "voted" out of place of work a sparkling puppet is presented in makes human beings experience the equipment works. this is extra effectual and state-of-the-artwork ability of administration than an open one-occasion dictatorship like they have in china. Its a 2-occasion hidden dictatorship.

Answer 5

Iraq did not attack us. Terrorists trained in Afghanistan. Many or most were Saudis, and received finanical support from influential Saudis. We had a better case to attack Saudi Arabia. Why do you insist on continuing to believe the Neocon lies when they've already been discredited?

Answer 6

Why can't Neo-Cons understand that Saddam Hussein is not, and never was Osama Bin Laden? Why aren't they outraged that Bin Laden is free and Al-Qaeda gained a training ground in a poorly planned war? Why don't they understand that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, the bombing of the Cole, or the Embassies in 1998?

Answer 7

There were no terrorists in Iraq before we got there and the big lie "we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" is a joke, what air force or navy are they going to use to amass troops here in America? That's just the stupidist crap I've ever heard, also you might ask what policy decisions of ours got them wanting to do us harm to start with, or is your mind to small to consider that option, that having troops amassed in their region might have been seen as an act of aggression, if it wasn't for our need for OIL we wouldn't give a rat's patootie about the freakin' sand dwellers in the middle east

Answer 8

Attacking Iraq because of 9/11 is like attacking Mexico because of Pearl Harbor.

Answer 9

We were not attacked by Iraq, they train all over the middle east, like in Saudi Arabia the country that you know furnished every highjacker, home of Bin Ladden and source of his wealth! If we had attaked Saudi Arabia, and continued prusuit of Bin Ladden I would support the war.

Answer 10

Why do you still not understand that Iraq did not attack us, they were no threat to us, there were no terrorists training in Iraq until we went in, etc. We are not there because there are "terrorists there" (there weren't any when we attacked), we are there because Bush convinced Congrees that Iraq was an "imminent threat" to the US which it wasn't. Iraq didn't want to attack us.

Answer 11

Sorry, but this "war" is Republican spin. Iraq had nothing to do with prosecuting the war on terrorism, still doesn't, but the war is distracting us and hobbling us from prosecuting terrorists worldwide. Republicans seem to want to go to war with the entire Muslim world. You cannot fight a war against an ideal, unless you are willing to conduct a war of genocide.