Do Yahoo "conservatives" still think that the was in Iraq was the best way to rid the world of terrorism?

Question

Since the start of the war regular people on the left and in the middle have said this war was not a good idea. Not it appears that people on the right are starting to figure out what we have known the whole time. I wonder what other issues the right will finally realize they were wrong about? Maybe..... Stem cells, Global warming......you never know.

If you will notice I said regular people not politicians

If you will notice I said regular people not politicians

Answer 1

A lot of moderate and liberal politicians voted for the war.

The war was about getting rid of Saddam, and was not considered to be the bellwhether for the war on terror. However, as the war went on Al-Qaeda made Iraq their battleground. The war in Afghanistan was the war about terror.

(Stem cell research is good and should be, and is, supported by private enterprise. Embryonic stem cell research has not produced a single result. Besides private business has developed more scientific findings in the past 50 years that government funded labs.)

Answer 2

I am a Yahoo conservative.

I think invading Iraq was the worst way to rid he world of terrorism.

But I think you missed the initial reasons for entering Iraq.
The first being to uncover MWD, which could have been done without entering Iraq.... oooops, none there.
The second, which could have been done without entering Iraq, to take out Saddam's regime and bring justice to the Iraqi people.

Entering Iraq was a poor choice by Congress, and was boosted by the support of Represenatives like John Kerry, and the media led America. Now it's time members of every and any party work together to rebuild, secure, and maintain Iraq.

When will some folks learn bitching and complaining, without a better frickin idea is childish.
Hagel said this was the most dangerous policy blunder since Vietnam. And he may be right, but it's about time he shut up, and start thinking of a better idea.
We can all sit on our as*es all day and complain, but thats not why were paying him 300,000 a year.

Answer 3

If you haven't noticed America has not been attacked after 9-11 no we can't stop at Iraq Iran is the problem. Global warming is real and hydrogen cars will be used within the next 5 years so and improvements are being made to industry, i agree more improvement is needed still. embryonic Stem cell research just as affective as regular stem cell research and regular means babies don't have to die. abortion is wrong, it is killing a child and should be illegal. 95% of abortions are only for the sake of birth control. 5% is for rape victims. Adoption is available and the child who is adopted gets a wonderful life and is not dead. most women who have abortions regret killing their baby. that's why i don't like embryonic stem cell research normal stem cells are good because no one dies in the process

Answer 4

Well, your people on the left were very proud of the War in Iraq. Bill Clinton, Pelosi, and many others wanted it. Clinton still doesnt mind it, but Pelosi is a titty bit more wishy washy than Clinton. Stem Cells, you have adult, umbilical cord, amiotic fluid stem cells, which have cured several diseases. But you dont hear about that do you? Global warming, I agree, although it is somewhat exaggerated. abortion? Well, the vast majority os embryologists agree that when the 23 chromozomes of the male combine with that of the female (conception in other words), human life is formed. So, we are destroying 1.27 billion human lives soley for birth control reasons. The other .1 billion abortions include rape and incest victims, along with medical complications. How about gay marriage too? Basic common sense says that homosexuality is an abomination to nature. But they are researching whether or not homosexuality is natural. There are only theories, so pro-gay marriage advocates dont have much to go off of. If they do prove that homosexuality is natural, then I dont have a problem with gay marriage. Back to Iraq. Saddam has met several times with Osama, so what's that? Meeting with a terrorist (probably to aid him). Saddam did have over 500 chemical WMDs, possibly more (in Syria?, but this is only theory).

Answer 5

What is really sad is that if we had really gone to war and not tried to be CareBears, we would have likely been through the worst of it already. War by it's very nature causes death. Yes, death before one's time isn't good, but as humans, it's in our nature to get in to fights. Trying to be all touchy feely about this war didn't work. I wish we had really taken it to them and crushed the region until the scumbags filtering in from Iran, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon would have gotten the idea that to be in the wrong place would be unhealthy to them. Maybe now, we will squash these subhuman maggots and calm things down once and for all. War is not the right environment for the faint hearted.

As to the issues mentioned, they are something worthwhile but truly non-issues. Most of these are common sense items and not really something that need all th debate granted to them. They keep us busy while the country is being guided down a path we have no control over.

Answer 6

i do not imagine we went in anticipating iran to be the bastards that they r being immediately. who would have envisioned that the iranian human beings ought to opt for a 17 november to guide their usa. The plan replaced into to take out the right terrorists of the international; saddam hussein, osama bin weighted down, al-zarqawi. as a lot as this factor we've dealt with 2 of the three important terrorist leaders and osama is fantastically a lot ineffective immediately. SO the subsequent step should be to slowly commence taking the terrorists out from the most concentrated factors and shifting outward until eventually terrrorist strongholds r eradicated and u in effortless words have little scattered communities left (we for sure cant kill all of em). Then the terrorists will be like a crew without a pacesetter and could in simple terms crumple. in simple terms provide it a at the same time as, i imagine u will c that there is a challenge in Iraq and that after we win, the international will be a a lot safer position to stay 4 all of us. we wont be there one hundred years. i imagine we are able to do it in about 5 and characteristic the ME in a threat-free state and able to shield themselves.

Answer 7

I never said it was the best way but hunting down terrorist in any place is better than allowing them to operate unabated. Saddam would have gladly given weapons to people that had the means to deliver them to the US and if you doubt that them you must not have paid much attention to the world over the last 20 years.

Answer 8

Funny, so many legislators on the left voted FOR this war, yet you seem to forget that. Your entire question is based on false premises. The objective of this war is NOT to end world terrorism. But while we're on the topic.

How many terrorist attacks have occurred in the USA since the war in Iraq started?

....

I can't hear you. ;)

Answer 9

OMG you are so brilliant. Thank you for enlightening me. I now see the error of my ways. Yes, that was sarcasm.

You make it sound like mainstream America was against this war from the start - NOT true. Quit acting like the left is going to save the world - they won't.

Do you think self-righteous people like yourself will ever quit trying to call anyone who doesn't agree with them stupid? I doubt it.

Answer 10

There is still about 30% of the population who will stubbornly stick to their ill conceived notions despite all evidence to the contrary.