Liberals, this is your chance to shine. Are you up to the task?

Question

You keep saying we should withdraw as soon as possible from Iraq. Great, just answer a few questions.

1) If we withdraw before the Iraqi government is strong enough to stand on its own, we are probably guaranteeing a real civil war there. When hundreds of thousands of people are killed in it, will you blame yourselves or Bush?

2) Iran will probably turn Iraq into a puppet state. Islamic law will rule Iraq, and the hopes for democracy speading in the Middle East will vanish for at least another 100 years. Who will you blame when this happens, yourselves or Bush?

3) If we withdraw, we cannot personally monitor the terrorists who want to come here and make the U.S. a battleground. Now we've got them reduced to crappy little stunts like blowing up buses two blocks from their house. When some terrorists, who are no longer constrained by our presence manage to mount another 9-11 attack, who will you blame, yourselves or Bush?

Speak Easy: I loved watching FOX news. Regrettably, I am in Europe now, and I can't see it. Kudos to you for not being one of the dead head College sheep.

Vaugh: C'mon, you are being disingenuous with us. You know good and well that everyone from John Murtha to John Kerry has used the term ASAP. Some even went so far as to say "immediately", or "six months".

Timothy B: If you don't mind a left-handed compliment, let me say that, for a Liberal, you're smarter than most. However, you are being very dismissive about the horrific consequences of us leaving prematurely. Have you really thought this through. By the way, I won't take the time to argue about how many terrorists were in Iraq before, but isn't it better to have them in a confined area? Easier to track. Easier to eliminate.

To "Pathos": My response to you is the same as the school headmaster told to Adam Sandler in Happy Gilmore: that is the most ridiculous response, and we all are a little dumber just from having heard it.

Profit based? You must really have a low opinion of U.S. Presidents. When they enter office, the solemnity of their job hits them hard. They do not callously or lightly enter into warfare.

How did you infer that I thought taking out Saddam was a mistake?????

Bush staged 9-11? What, are you the alter ego of Yahoo Answers "Nancy"?

Keeping terrorists out of the U.S. is every bit as difficult as keeping bugs out of your home. You sometimes have to take extraordinary steps to seal off every milimeter. It's like trying to keep water from seeping through the cracks into the basement.

Get serious about the terrorist threat.

Answer 1

1) A civil war is already in effect. Iraqis are dieing violently by the dozens, everyday, at the hands of their fellow Iraqis. The country is in chaos. There doesn't need to be complete anarchy to be a civil war, as our own history has already proven. Somewhere between 30,000 & 120,000 Iraqis have already dies, innocently. I think the fact that the estimates are so wide shows that there is a civil war. I will blame the President & the insurgents for this.

2) Let them join the club. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and a bunch of other Middle Eastern countries are all controlled (one way or the other) by Islamic religious leaders. I will blame no one for this, since this is how countries over there operate, and how it is generally preferred. Not every country can be like the U.S.

3) We cannot personally monitor the terrorists in Iraq right NOW, either! That's why our troops keep dieing, and Iraqis keep dieing, and people continue to be kidnapped and beheaded, and all the bombs go off, and all the violence occurs. We have no idea where the terrorists in Iraq are, otherwise they'd ALL have been arrested, and Iraq would be peaceful. In the news, they have been saying bin Laden is rebuilding al-Qaeda. That's not happening in Iraq, so obviously terrorists are in other places as well. I will blame Bush, since he's the one who got us into this mess.

Answer 2

1) The current Iraqi governmet is corrupt, the country is already ina civil war, millions have left the country, including most of the eduicated and secular people, and hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed -- all Bushes fault. If the civil war ensues, I will blame the remaining Iraqis for not working out a plan to live together. It certainly won't be "the liberals fault".

2) the idea that invading Iraq and setting up a "democracy" there would cause "democarcy to "spread" through the middle east was a neocon pipe dream. The current (corrupt) government is already heavily influenced by Iran and already has aspects of islamic law. Entirely the fault of Bush for removing a secular Hussien allowing the rise of the Shi'ia and increasing the influence of Iran.

3) The likelyhood of anything on the scale of 9/11 happennig again is fairly remote, the "terrorists" you claim are in Iraq are insurgements fighting the occupation and religious factions fighting each other with little interest of coming here. The idea that an islamic army could get into the US and create "a battleground" is absurd.

What do you mean " we cannot personally monitor the terrorists who want to come here"? I am not "personally responsible" for defense and intellegence activities, that is the responsibility of the US government and with all the resources now invested in monitoring terrorism, we should be able to kept them out of the country. If there are cells here now, well then it's on Bush's watch. How does our presence in Iraq constrain determined terrorists from getting into the US? Another absurdity -- they could just come over the border from Mexico if they wanted to.

Answer 3

The war in Iraq is not going to change the outcome. It is all about religion and their differences. The Iraqi army is riddled with terrorists, deserters and people that have their own agenda. They need to get it together for their country.

I am naive enough to think that these holy religions were for good reasons. Not to kill your brethren, the women and children on purpose.

These people are still living the life that is thousands of years old. They see no logic or common sense to living in peace with their neighbors.

Iraq is too embedded with their ancient religious beliefs and have not come up to the times. They are not going to change to this new democracy easy if at all.

President Bush brought us into this war with lies. All for the wrong reasons. He thought it to be a pushover. That is the egomania of it all. He is a unilateral president and does exactly what he wants and has hidden good intelligence if it doesn't fit his agenda.

Withdrawing troops doesn't mean that they will not be in the region, they would still be there but out of the middle of this civil war.

I cannot understand the people that stand behind this president knowing how bad his actions have been not only in Iraq but also in our own country.

Answer 4

John ... No liberals living in my household, but I wanted to suggest another certain outcome resulting from a hasty withdrawal from the Middle East, if I may.

I've been trying to alert some of the younger folks to the certainty that the entire region will become seriously destabilized. A civil war that will expand beyond Iraq's borders is more than a likelihood; I consider it a certainty.

Well, if that doesn't convince them enough because American lives would not be directly affected (presuming we withdraw), I then try to remind these folks about the effects resulting from a disruption to the flow of oil from the region. It wouldn't hurt only us; an economic calamity affecting the entire world is certain.

I don't have a crystal ball, but I DO remember the Arab oil embargo that began in 1973. Most of our liberal friends who want to withdraw from Iraq tomorrow are either unable to look forward a little, and are also incapable of looking back to 1973 and all the harm that came to us and the world ... Such as the price of gas tripling in some countries, very high inflation, increased unemployment, a remarkable loss to the world's equity markets (i.e., devalued investments), gas stations closing for being out of fuel, not to mention fuel rationing.

Rationing? Yes, rationing, meaning you could only buy fuel for your auto on certain days of the week and only a limited amount. You couldn't just drive up anytime you felt like it and say, "Fill 'er up." It didn't go that way.

Those who oppose our involvement in Iraq fall into one or more of the following categories:

1 - Too young or inexperienced to have the perspective needed to make such decisions. In other words, they want to wear the pants, but they don't really have any experience.

2 - "Peace-niks," i.e., people who want peace at all costs even if they have to surrender and relinquish their freedoms to get it.

3 - Anti-establishment types with mentors coming from the likes of Tim Robbins (and his wife), Sean Penn (he should have stuck to making goofy movies), Michael Moore, and the "lovely" Jane Fonda.

When the "stuff" hits the fan, I hope the "Libs" won't forget who their mentors are. Instead of asking the President or the Defense Department for assistance, I'm sure these folks will run to their faithful left-leaning leaders. Michael Moore won't mind sharing his profits from his debunked movie to help come to the rescue of those who believe in him, I'm sure.

However, I honestly believe a more likely scenario is this: At the first sign of trouble, the Hollywood types who've been bashing the President despite their not having ANY national security experience, will all have their mail forwarded to the French Riviera where you'll find them catching some rays while sipping their cocktails.

But the folks reading this need not believe me. As I said, I didn't use a crystal ball to predict the economic disaster than will ensue. It's all spelled out in my link (below) which carefully details that all this has already happened the last time there was widespread anarchy in the Middle East.

No, the link below does not point to a political blog or an organization with a political agenda. These facts from our recent past are all clearly detailed in this Wikipedia link.

Answer 5

1. Hundreds of thousands are already dead with our presence.

2. PM al-Maliki and company are already allying with Iran. The Democratically elected government Bush wanted - they prefer Iran. This was predictable and predicted.

3. There were no terrorists there before we attacked and allowed them a foothold. Once we leave and the Iraqis can finally battle it out themselves to determine who will lead Iraq they will deal with the terrorists. If terrorists want to come here President Bush has kept the borders wide open.

Answer 6

1.If we withdraw it is for the sake of our troops, who the right-wingers won't properly armor, train, fund, or deploy in significant numbers, or properly care for once they are damaged or destroyed. It is not about the Iraqis. Bush is one of many people to blame for conspiring to start a profit-based war, which was founded on lies.

2. You obviously agree that taking out Saddam Hussein was the wrong thing to do, at the time. Now you are looking for someone to replace him, someone like him, who is not afraid of the Saudis, or the Iranians.
Yes, clearly Bush has played an integral part in the destabilization of all countries.

3. GWB is one of the people who has staged the 911 attacks, and his administration has done everything to thwart objective investigation of the event. By the way, he did NOTHING to stop the attacks.
No. I blame jerk-offs like you for supporting terrorism, through your ignorance, and arrogance.

Answer 7

through fact liberals question the upbringing and person's existence reviews. in the event that they have been noted right into a custom/historic past of anti-social habit and violence, then they're in basic terms responding to how they have been noted and reacted to their ecosystem. Liberals have not got self assurance that truncheoning the "scum" and locking them away continuously certainly solves the middle of the difficulty, it in basic terms scratches the outdoors. helping them come out of their procedures is plenty greater time-eating and confusing, even though that's far greater powerful for each guy or woman interior the long-term, which contain the sufferer.

Answer 8

Very good points. Lieberals will make the same old arguments no matter what the question and turn it into another Blame Bush issue.

Answer 9

Iraq is going to eventually split up into three countries. Even conservatives know that.

Answer 10

Yea they got Obama Hussein and Hillary wow