Why don't all the self-righteous liberals see the flaws in their reasoning regarding Iraq?

Question

First of all, calling the situation in Iraq a war is just political propoganda, because it's not technically a war. The insurgents aren't a legitimate resistance force because of the fact that most of their victims have been Iraqi civilians. Killing civilians with suicide bombers is not heroic, and has nothing to do with fighting for freedom. People who dwell on the reasons for invading Iraq to justify immediate withdrawal are missing the point. You don't just run away without first fixing what you started, just like if you break someone's window, running away rather than fixing or paying for it only makes it more wrong. Besides, Saddam was a mass murderer who deserved to go one way or another. If Stalin or Hitler had been removed using lies or "illegal" methods, why would anyone be complaining about it? No, I don't support the invasion of Iraq or Bush. But I can't stand all the liberals who act like enlightened saviors or who just want oppose it because they hate Bush.

Answer 1

you is right

Answer 2

Yeah, and Vietnam was just a "police action". Are you really so delusional that you don't know the difference between a technicality and a practicality ? Just because the Iraq WAR isn't officially called a war doesn't mean it isn't a war.
The same thing can be said about your statement that the "insurgents aren't a legitimate resistance force because of the fact that most of their victims have been Iraqi civilians". What do you mean by "legitimate" ? You can't possibly mean that they are NOT resisting our occupation. Perhaps you mean that you don't approve of their resistance. Or maybe, because they kill more of their fellow countrymen than the enemy, that automatically means they are not the true resistance. What difference does it make ? Just technicalities.
Now, are you sure that we are fixing the situation in Iraq ? Because it occurs to me that we are only making it worse. Thats why we should get out. The Iraq people have had enough of our "fixing".
Finally what came first the chicken or the egg ? Which came first, people hating Bush, or Bush getting us into an unnecessary war ?

Answer 3

According to your words: "The insurgents aren't a legitimate resistance force because of the fact that most of their victims have been Iraqi civilians. Killing civilians with suicide bombers is not heroic, and has nothing to do with fighting for freedom. "
O.k I can accept that and that's what the left has been saying all along. IN that case, according to your words now, not Bush's, why are we sending more troops to escalate the tensions there. And, if it is a civil war, which is what you are actually saying here, then what the hell are we doing sending in more of our troops? It's not our war. Saddam is gone, mission accomplished, we should be out of there too.

Answer 4

Interesting, I watch comments back and forth all the time and the only ones that I see on YA that even come close to being self-righteous are also called Neocons. For some reason they just seem to be pig headed and will not listen. They see the world as black or white, right or wrong, my way or no way.

There are some liberals that issue forth some pretty arrogant and generalized statements and they get jumped on, as they should. So don't feel alone. You being an uber conservative only see things your way and no other so you will tend to exagerate as will the uber liberals. Even with unequivical proof, even if Jesus Christ Himself came with the same evidence, these radicals would not believe they are wrong.

So lighten up and stop calling the pot black when the kettle is too. Another appropriate cliche is don't throw stones when you live in a glass house.

Answer 5

what ever you want to call it is merely an issue of semantics... perhaps some have preconceived notions of the situation... but the fact is... both sides put PLENTY of spin on the "naming" of the conflict... it's a lot closer to a "war in Iraq" than a "war on terror"...

the simple fact is... we're in a state of nation building that verging on (if not already gone into) civil war...

so... how exactly do you "fix" a religious civil war... did we start the Islamic tension between the factions that has been there for CENTURIES? I don't think so... and I don't think we're going to solve it...

and are you saying that it doesn't matter how much you lie... if your motivation is good? I would have complained if Stalin or Hitler had been removed using lies... MAINLY BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T NEED TO LIE... the truth is MORE than enough to prove your case.... are people SO corrupt anymore that they just have to lie about things they don't even need to lie about? apparently?

you're walking down some very dangerous roads here with your "justifications" and it's basically a list of "rationalizations"... you don't need to rationalize if your doing what you should be doing... doesn't sound very rational if you ask me at all...

Answer 6

You are correct that it is not technically a war (relative to our involvement), because Congress never declared war.

It has nothing to do with whether the insurgents are a legitimate resistance or not. It's purely a matter of US Constitutional law. Only Congress can declare the US to be in a state of war.

And you are correct -- the reasons for invading and deposing Saddam in the first place have nothing to do with why we are still there years after "Mission Accomplished".

And you are correct -- the main reason we are still there is that we feel guilty about having caused so much of a mess.

But most people who are opposing the war aren't doing it just because they hate Bush. Most people just also happen to hate Bush for other (often unrelated) reasons.

But you are correct -- there will always be fanatics on both sides who say that we must either love it all or hate it all as a package, without looking at each situation and person individually. And that's sad.

Answer 7

Don't assume that a liberals who didn't support the invasion to begin with all feel that we should cut and run. I'm sure you know what happens when you "assume" and make generalizations. While I never agreed with the premise of invading Iraq, now that we're there we need to finish what we started. To leave abruptly right now without a stable government in place, would cause Iraq to spin further into chaos and civil war.

Answer 8

Why is it that you can not ask a question without resorting to mud flinging and name calling?

I am not going to get into it here. I suspect your 'question' was more of an opportunity for you to rant and I am not going to waste time on someone that isn't actually interested in a discussion on politics.

However I will say that laws in the US and Aus were made and put it in place so that an authoritative government could not break them. Bush and Howard have continuously bent them. I have issues with that.

Answer 9

verify out crime info. the main violent aspects interior the rustic. Do the stats propose that it rather is simply by a majority of conservatives residing in those aspects. Phoenix is the abduction capital of the u . s . now, and look who's in charge. Chicago might ought to call on the national look after to take administration back from the gangs. Then there is the Tea occasion, no longer even leaving trash on the floor. in reality they clean up maximum aspects and go away them greater effective than they got here across them. i think of a few communities are not waiting to objective and stay in a civilized society, they are going to easily spend maximum of their time in penal complex for their huge uncontrollable habit. greater effective to deliver them back until they evolve merely a sprint greater. a minimum of until they are in a position to return right here without attempting to kill or rape or scouse borrow your motor vehicle.

Answer 10

You're too right, let's just stay in Iraq until the job is done, like England did in Ireland. These religious civil "actions" get wrapped up right quick. We'll be out of there in a few decades? centuries?

Answer 11

Whether you realize it or not, you are simply justifying the abuse of executive power by deploying forces that - initially - engaged a sovereign government and its military, based on shoddy evidence.

The political propaganda here is that which managed to convince Americans with attention deficit disorder (or that simply just don't care) that lying to the country and getting thousands of troops killed or permanently disabled as a result doesn't matter. Apparently, this is "whining."