English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Freedom in Iraq means Freedom in America, but I guess liberals don't want to live in a free society. They prefer Socialism or Communism.

2007-01-18 00:06:46 · 14 answers · asked by conservativeguyfromnc 2 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

14 answers

It's the Republicans who are against freedom in America. Otherwise they wouldn't have passed the USA Patriot Act, suspended Habeas Corpus (think Guantanamo), or tapped millions of phone calls without warrants.

2007-01-18 00:10:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

"Freedom in Iraq means Freedom in America,"
Most people opposed to the war (not necessarily liberals) would disagree with this statement. They would disagree because there was little or no involvement with al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion. Saddam was a despot and a nasty guy, but he really posed no threat to America (or even Israel). Most intelligence and international relations experts agree that since the invasion, Iraq has becomea BETTER breeding ground for terrorists and MORE unstable.
I have no problem with targeted strikes to find those who have attacked us and take them out; problem is that we invaded and occupied a country for no particular reason. That's a whole nother kettle of fish, and it has nothing to do with "freedom in America."

Further, what does the war have to do with communism or socialism? Nothing whatsoever. This is just unnecesary repeated rhetoric that somehow demcrats what us to be communists, which of course is far from the truth. Communitarian ideas, such as universal health care, a living wage, and consumer protections does not make a communist (or even a socialist) state. And if you want to debate the virtues of a single-payer health care system, or whether the minimum wage is effective, or whether social security should be privatized, or, on the other hand, whether the Iraq war has made us more secure, or whether the US should unilaterally attack other countries preemptively, or whether we should be wiretapping in the interest of 'national security' (a VERY communist idea), that's fine, we can debate that, but don't confuse all of those things together.

2007-01-18 00:19:29 · answer #2 · answered by Perdendosi 7 · 1 0

There is no and never will be an issue of freedom in Iraq, which is impossible in that country, but merely a change from one dictatorial form of government to another, from one despot to another with more, I'm sure, to follow. Corruption in Iraq has only been enhanced with the inflow of American dollars, much of which unaccounted for, that could be much better spent on domestic needs such as schools, social security, midicare, hospitals, infrastructure, etc. This is not a question of liberals, whatever this slogan means, versus Conservative, etc., but a question of doing what's right for America and not squandering its resources, especially when mortgaged, on some ill-advised foreign adventure such as the Iraq War and lining the pockets of despots and Corporations such as Halliburton. These are the real issues which have no political labels attached.

2007-01-18 00:18:35 · answer #3 · answered by cliff 4 · 1 0

Freedom in a country on the other side of the planet in no way effects American Society, nor American Freedom. An sometimes we come across the Iraq war an turn our backs on the idea of forcing a government system on a people who do not want Democracy. Its a tough idea to swallow that American Democracy isn't loved and cherished by all. If that makes me a Communist then so be it.

2007-01-18 00:13:16 · answer #4 · answered by jscott0919 1 · 1 0

There are a lot of conservatives who are also getting weak in the knees about Iraq, but I don't think it means that they don't favor freedom. I think it's because they don't see the big picture ramifications of our leaving Iraq. All they see is all the death and chaos presented by the press.

My thing with Liberals and war is that they are all about wanting to redistribute our wealth to others, saying that we don't deserve to have so much more than others. At the same time, I can't understand why they don't believe that other countries deserve to have the same security, freedom and independent prosperity that we enjoy.

2007-01-18 00:14:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Just to correct you on a couple of liberal points.

1. Liberals are not unwilling to defend American interests in Iraq. They are just using the unpopularity of Iraq to achieve their own political power.

2. Conservatives act as if capitalism and free enterprise is the answer to all the world's problems. Liberals act as if free enterprise and capitalism causes economic disparities which cause of many of the world's problems.

2007-01-18 00:16:24 · answer #6 · answered by Dr. D 7 · 0 0

Freedome in Iraq is up to the Iraquis not us. The two do not equate, some of our trading partners are far form free, ie; China, Saudi Arabia, Indoneasia. You probably think I am a liberal, as I do not support our war in Iraq, i support our troops, and believe Iraq xcould have waited until we killed or captured Osamma, and his al quieda, which we seem to have placed on a back burner. I have sent 2 of my sons, and two of my son in laws into the war, I also served in Viet Nam, so I believe I have the right to challange and disagree with Mr. Bush's war, have you been to war? If not go to Iraq and come back in 6 or 7 months and tell me what you think!or are you merely a low level troll loking for some fun on yahoo answers?

2007-01-18 00:40:09 · answer #7 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 1 1

freedom:(n)-the condition of being free of restraints.

How, exactly, is tying our troops down in Iraq equated to "freedom in America"? The two are unrelated. By waging war on Iraq, not only are we impeding our freedom and that of our troops, we are impeding the freedom of Iraqis.

2007-01-18 00:12:12 · answer #8 · answered by john_stolworthy 6 · 1 0

The conflict on Terrorism must be fought on a worldwide point. regrettably, with all of the muck being positioned out by using the Liberal Press businesses no person is able to verify the solid being performed in this operation. the sorrowful be conscious is terrorism can in no way be defeated, perhaps controlled or directed could be a miles better term. Their theory device is so good that if a frontrunner is killed or captured, the subsequent one in line takes over an no person is wide-unfold with of the exchange in management. i admire the thought of The conflict on Terrorism, yet ask your self if we can relatively accomplish our targets. Please do not take this the incorrect way. i'm veteran of barren area typhoon a million with Bush Sr. and alter into waiting to verify our purpose executed. The Liberation of Kuwait exchange into our considerable purpose.

2016-10-31 10:30:43 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

What American freedom you are talking about?It is American Terrorism against the poor Iraqi people!

2007-01-18 00:11:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers