libs: what would need to change about Iraq to make you support it?

Question

Which of the following possibilities would make you more supportive of Iraq: (select all that apply)

a.) If the war were started by Clinton
b.) If Iraq had no oil
c.) If Iraq were part of no US national interest
d.) If the UN issued a statement of approval
e.) If it were ruled by osama bin laden

Answer 1

When is little lltrix going to get it through her fat head understanding that IRAQ broke 17 UN resolutions?

PS...Also, what part of ALL VOLUNTEER military don't liberals get?

Answer 2

I would have to say E, with the possible exception of D. I supported military action in Afghanistan (and still do), and may support it in Saudi Arabia (haven't made up my mind yet), as those nations or leaders had direct involvement in terrorist attacks upon the United States. It brings up the question of why didn't we finish one job before moving on to another.

Also if the purpose of the invasion had been acknowledged the whole time to be about bringing down S. Hussein's regime, then fine, but don't pretend it's about weapons of mass destruction. That alone could have garnered much more international support.

Instead, this conflict has developed into a clash of cultures and religions, of East vs West, of Islam vs Christianity. This, combined with the power vacuum created by the fall of Iraq, plays directly into the hands of charismatic heads of state like Ahmadinejad, who is seizing the opportunity to portray Iran as a leader in the Middle East (and to a lesser extent, the global Islamic community) by standing up to the United States.

I'm kind of iffy about D because I think the United Nations is a very weak organization with no authority to enforce its decisions or resolutions, so nobody really takes their sanctions seriously. A UN-issued statement of approval would be nice, but I would never wait around for it either.

Answer 3

I think we should have went after the terror countries that actually have attacked us on 9/11. Then after we got them settled this would have made a much better record for going into Iraq.

But since President Bush is commraddes with the Saudis, and Pakistan, Jordan. He there fore went against all the other countries in the UN and the world to settle his personal vendetta with Iraq, and use it as a front for the war on terror,,

Yes we won some battles, and Saddam is gone... The rest has been a sorry loss. :(((

Answer 4

If the exact circumstances happened under Clinton I would believe exactly the same

If Iraq had no oil we wouldn't even know where it is

The only interest we have in Iraq is oil.

If the UN issued a statement of approval more countries would be involved and we wouldn't be trying to go it alone.

If it were ruled by OBL maybe we could support a war as he is the real enemy and dangerous. Saddam was nothing.

Answer 5

As a liberal I will never support anything in Iraq.

The Bible clearly says Babylon is cursed forever. That eliminates it from all other Nations on Earth that are subject to the typical passions of society.

There is no other Nation cursed in this manor. Damascus is cursed as a city but not all of Syria.

It is personal choice to not oppose the will of God. If others want to that is their business.

Go big Red Go

Answer 6

d. a UN sanctioned war would have resulted in greater international involvement with regards to troops, relief rebuilding. It would have been a far smaller bill to foot, and there would not be as much controversy regarding the motives of the war.

Answer 7

If we had occupied Iraq in a manner consistent with international law, like we did in Operation Desert Storm, I would have far less objection.

That operation, authorized by the UN Security Council, actually made us money, as opposed to the twenty five soldiers and $1.5 billion a week hemorrhage we are experiencing currently in our nation-building adventure.

Answer 8

I see Cookie is back. Liberals wouldn't support the Iraq war because they would have finished the job in Afghanistan first and they wouldn't stretch our Military so thin. You're support for Bush is misguided Cookie.

Answer 9

Nothing.

This war has nothing to do with freedom, democracy, Bill Clinton, or a direct threat to this country--as Bush claims.

It has to do with power, control, and war-profiteering by the GOP and Bush.

Answer 10

None of the above. I'd support our actions in Iraq if we had never invaded in the first place.

There IS a reason Clinton never invaded.

Answer 11

Your options are just silly.

Bush and company have screwed things up so badly in Iraq it is impossible to achieve victory now.

Even Kissinger admits it.