Liberals, your opinions please.?

Question

I've heard countless times complain that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 (which the Bush administration agrees, but says that they were supporters of ism) and that we shouldn't have taken him out.

Let's go on that line of thinking. Are you saying that in order for us to take out a threat, we have to be attacked first? Aren't you ensuring that we will be attacked by those who have wanted to see this country's destruction? Isn't that a way to gurarantee another attack against us? Aren't you the ones saying Bush didn't do enough to prevent 9/11?

Answer 1

Well, the matter is this, Hussein was a dictator, a fascist, who ruled his country with cruelty. He murdered his own people in the tens of thousands, he thumbed his nose at allowing U.N. inspectors into Iraq, and bragged from time to time that he was indeed creating WMD and supported terrorism. However, as dictators are known to do, he was lying, and posed no serious threat to the United States.

Answer 2

The ones who were on the planes were Saudi, .... OBL was saudi. What charges were Saddam hung under? any dealing with the US ever???? Find that answer yourself and you will see why people are saying Saddam was not our business. What are the reasons behind that we should had taken him out? was it because he was a terrible man and killed thousands of him own? What does that have to do with America? nothing....

Ok and by you asking "in order for us to take out a threat. we have to be attacked first?" Saddam was no threat to us.. The one who is suppose to be responcible has yet to be captured.

"Aren't you ensuring that we will be attacked by those who have wanted to see this country's destruction?"~~ how exactly are we ensuring that we will be attacked by those who have wanted to see this country's destruction? By wanting if we had to go into a war do it right w/out lies? There are far more countrys who hate america now then before? should we be worried about that? should we go and invade the country who's president called the US president a stupid moron?

"Isn't that a way to gurarantee another attack against us?"~~ wouldnt anyone with the least bit of sense know that if someone wanted to attack the US then it would have been done while all of america's attention is on Iraq? Do you think that Iraq holds ALL of the terrorists and NO other country has any?

Answer 3

I do not believe that there was a direct connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda and 9-11. We had already attacked teh Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and we could have purdued the terrorists from that vanage point. Going to war in Iraq wasn't something that needed to be done right then. We had Iraq contained with the Northern and southern No-Fly Zones, which we patrolled with fighter aircraft and surveillance aircraft on a 24/7 basis.

What are we supposed to think? Was Iraq that huge of a threat at that time, that we had to go in and overthrow the regime? Was Sadaam really a threat, or just a thorn in our side.

History will prove this out. That Iraq has been overthrown and puppet regimes installed since the beginning of time, starting with Adam and Eve!!! As long as religious radicals use terrorist means to justify thier means, there iwill be upheaval in the middle east.

Answer 4

Ok. So, how many countries can you now count that can pretty accurately say that the US is a threat to them? We have lost our moral "high ground" and I doubt we can get it back. What could be more dangerous?

-----

"All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time ­ I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."

NO, THAT was not said by some anti-American opponent of the proposed attack on Iraq. It was not said by any European politician opposed to the Bush Doctrine, which sanctions the use of pre-emptive force and "preventive attack" against any state deemed a threat to the United States. That statement was made by none other than former American President Dwight Eisenhower in 1953 when he was presented with plans to launch a pre-emptive strike against Stalin's Soviet Union. Eisenhower wisely rejected that madness.

Two months after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, General Leslie F. Groves, Pentagon overseer of the Manhattan Project, expressed views on controlling nuclear proliferation similar to the Bush Doctrine. "If we are truly realistic instead of idealistic, as we appear to be, we would not permit any foreign power with which we are not firmly allied and in which we do not have absolute confidence, to make or possess atomic weapons. If such a country started to make atomic weapons we would destroy its capacity to make them before it has progressed far enough to threaten."

President Harry Truman rejected the proposal out of hand. In 1961, during the Berlin Crisis, some of President Kennedy's key advisers discovered that the Soviet Union's nuclear forces were far weaker and more vulnerable than they had previously thought. They proposed a pre-emptive strike. Theodore Sorenson, Chief White House Counsel and speechwriter to the President, was told of the plan and reportedly shouted, "You're crazy! We shouldn't have guys like you around here."

George Bush has reached into the rubbish heap of history to rehabilitate an old, discarded, discredited and dishonourable doctrine to make his own. It is a most dangerous doctrine and one which threatens to plunge the world into chaos and anarchy, and is a doctrine which repudiates every principle of international law and civilised behaviour.

Answer 5

If Saddam were not a threat to begin with - why take him out?

Even Daddy Bush insisted to Jr. that he not invade/attack Iraq because it would create a vaccum of power in Iraq and create chaos and instability there!

Why didn't jr. listen to Daddy?

In re: Bush not doing enough to prevent 9/11 - I do not feel completely ignoring Clintons advise about the Terrorist threats, spending 40 percent of his time on vacation, and not even reading the memos on the subject qualifies Bush for doing everything he could do about 9/11!

Bush could have possibly avoided 9/11 - but didn't!

He failed America - and he is failing America now by throwing our hard earned tax dollars down a sewage pit and in allowing our troops to be needlessly killed there!

Answer 6

Prevent bloodshed altogether, not cause it.

Resorting to some sort of "Minority Report" tactic isn't the answer. If someone hasn't committed a crime, you shouldn't just take a wild stab at what they're about to do and then punish them for it. You're removing accountability. If you just paint someone as a criminal, they don't have any incentive not to do wrong, see? Whereas if you retaliate against people who actually commit crimes, you keep the honest people honest, and even "bad" people can choose to do right if they want to.

Pointing at someone and screaming "Terrorist!" doesn't really justify killing them, but there are people actually rejoicing about this crap. It's really kind of tragic - we should be doing a little more to respect people's humanity and reform the ones we can instead of finding flimsy justifications for slaughtering them and then singing our own praises.

Answer 7

I'm not a liberal, but constantly accused of being one, so...

Look at how quickly Sadaam's regime fell. Do you seriously think he could have attacked anyone?

Personally, I would have been fully behind a revolution by the Iraqi people. You can't free a slave that isn't willing to fight for his own freedom, and this is proving true. The only ones who have any fight in them in that country are the "insurgents", the people who are pissed that we took them out of power.

Answer 8

Anybody in a court of law has to prove harm to have a case. What don't you understand? Are you saying we aren't a nation of laws......... Oh yeah, Bush and the far right already said they would only obey laws they agreed with. Wonder why you lost in Nov?

Answer 9

If we had been told the truth about the reasons and we had not ben filled with propaganda and treated as citizens of a democracy, the people would also have felt a determination..but since the false reasons given to us to allow the Admin. the power to do it are viewed as manipulation, how can the citizens of the US support it...how can we support the lies told us to manipulate us...?

Answer 10

How can you possibly prevent a crime from happening . There are millions of people in that region of the world that hate America and what we stand for .