I want an honest answer from Liberals?

Question

1.If the war we are in now was being presided over by a Liberal, lets say Bill Clinton or Al Gore, with the same outcomes. Would you still be against the war?

2.If we at this same point had lost 20,000 troops in Afghanistan because of the unfriendly terrain and the terrorists getting help from Iran and Saddam. (It is common knowlege that Saddam gave money to suicide bombers in Gaza) Would you be still be anti-war?

3. Would any of you ever be for killing terrorist, or is it just because you do not like the President?

Serious answers only…none of this Tin Foil hat wearing answers…I am trying to understand you…

Anthony all you answers make me laugh...you actually think Gore would have went after Bin Ladin? Being second in Command why did he not get him the 8 years he was able to?
Yes we would have lost 5 times the number of troops in Afghanistan than what we have lost in Iraq...if the terrorists concentrated their fighting there it would be a lot harder...they Jihad in Iraq for the same reason we are there...has nicer weather and it is easier to fight in a flat dessert than in the mountains...anyone with military experience knows that...you remind me of my Geography Professor in college...oh well that is your opinion..

I respect all of your opinions…but have any of you ever thought that the Generals running this war know a little bit more about warfare than you do, and there are certain things that is privileged information? I believe the outcome would have been different if Clinton or Gore was in charge…we would still be trying to decide what to do…Clinton was very indecisive he proved it many, many times…Bin Ladin himself cited Clinton’s pulling out of Somalia as his motivation to do 9/11..you remember “Paper Tiger” remark…I believe as many. Many Democrats and other people did that Saddam did have WMDs…they have been found, just not as stock piled as first thought…but he did have several months to get rid of them didn’t he? I think much of the motivation to go into Iraq had to do with the failure of Russia in Afghanistan,

and the Intel, the same Intel that Congress and the President both got, pointed to Saddam and WMDs…me talking about Saddam and Gaza shows he did support terror (He would send the families of Suicide Bombers $10,000 for killing Israelis…he did not stand for it in his country, but he wanted it elsewhere…but I do respect most of you for holding your ground…I wish some Liberals were just as respectful…

Answer 1

1) yes.. it's not the man in charge (though he has burned many bridges with us) that is my reason for being against the war in Iraq.. but for some this is just the straw that broke the camels back so to speak.. those would be for it most likely.

2) The number of troops is important.. but that is no where near all of the reason to support/not support these wars.. in Afghanistan we are backed by the international community.. we didn't go in under false pretense (whether intentional or not is irrelevant.. the fact is the reasons we had to go there did not actually exist) and we were looking for the REAL threat to our nation.. the guy who planned the 9/11 attacks.. I have no problem supporting the war on terror.. Iraq is a quagmire we created.. so it is a separate war that we have tried to drag into the war on terror.


3) if you read answer 2 my position on this should be clear.

Answer 2

I don't know if I should answer this because I do not consider myself a liberal. I will though because I am sure that the neo-con religious right would consider me liberal and I am against the conflict (no war has been declared by the way) in Iraq.

1. If Bill Clinton or Al Gore were mismanaging the conflict in Iraq in the same manner that our current President has, I would be 100% against it.

2. I am against the conflict in Afghanistan for the same reasons I am against the conflict in Iraq. No declaration of war, mismanagement of our troops, no clear plan for the future.

3. I am for killing those that are an imminent threat to our country. Be careful with the term "terrorist" as it may be expanded to include you some day.

Why is it so easy with semantics to label a wide range of people enemies. Of course it was easier in the cold war when it was just russians. In this day of political correctness, we cannot say it is arabs or muslims. We have to say it is terrorists that are our enemies. What is a terrorist? How do we know that someone is a terrorist? What evidence do we need before we execute a terrorist? What about the terrorists within the US? Should we kill all KKK members? (might lose a few republican voters in that sweep) Wouldn't they fit the definition of terrorist?

Answer 3

1. Yes, I would still be against this war, even if Clinton were the one presiding over it. After all, it doesn't make any sense to send troops to fight in a country that was in no way involved in any attacks on US soil.
2. I think we should have focused on Afghanistan and capturing bin Laden from the very beginning. After all, it's already been 5 YEARS since the 9/11 attacks, and bin Laden STILL hasn't been caught!
3. I'm always for killing terrorists.

Answer 4

1) If it were, yes I would still be against it. The war in Iraq was based on false information, we shouldn't of attacked them because they never threatened us.

2) Afganistan is where the people responsible for 9/11 were, I still support the war in Afganistan since we are working to liberate people who have long been oppressed by extremist Islam.

Gaza is NOT America, it is Israel (actually it is Palestine), Israel should take its security into it's own hands, it is not the responsibility of the United States to fight their battles for them.

It has never been proven that Saddam helped or funded Al-quieda or the Taliban, try again.

3) Terrorists are for the most part people who have nothing left to lose so they take up arms against those they think wronged them and their people. The minority of terrorists are the ideolouges who go out and get more suicide bombers and set them loose on innocents.

And if you think we are fighting Al Queida in Iraq you are dreaming. The majority of the conflict in Iraq is a Civil War, Sunni Vs. Shite, for control of the nation.

Answer 5

1. If Bill Clinton or Al Gore were Commander-in Chief, the 'outcome' would be very different. Even YOU should agree there.
2. The war in Afghanistan is the real 'War against Terror', and that is where it has to be conducted. Saddam didn't tolerate 'terrorists' in Iraq. Bush, with his idiotic policies, brought 'terrorists' and civil war to Iraq. Bush had Bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora, and......?
3. Stupid question. All terrorists should be exterminated. But when Bush starts defining 'terrorists', I get quite suspicious.
Remember, Bush had they entire world supporting him after 9/11, people WANTED him to succeed, but he blew it bigtime. That's why I don't like him. In fact, I despise him.

Answer 6

If Clinton or Gore had been in office, there would NOT have been a war in Iraq in response to 9-11. It didn't make sense. They had nothing to do with 9-11 and they were not a threat.

They would be fighting the war on terror, unlike Bush.

Talk about "tin foil". I'm sure you noticed all the so called conservative responses to your questions. The only ones that provided you with any honesty or thought were the liberals.

Here's an honest question back to you: do you honestly think we should have attacked Iraq following 9-11??? Do you honestly think that the war in Iraq has NOT weakened our ability to fight the Global War on Terror???

Answer 7

1. Yes
2. What does Gaza have to do with Afghanistan? I am in support of the Afghanistan War. What we were doing there before the Iraq War was good, but then we let up. So I would still be against invading Iraq, who had nothing to do with the Afghanistan War.
3. I am for finding and bringing to justice anyone who was involved with terrorists attacks or potential attacks on the US. This of course doesn't include Iraq.

Answer 8

1 - yes

2 - The common knowledge you talk about is wrong. Saddam gave money to a few families of suicide bombers after the fact. That's a long way from full fledged support of ongoing terrorist operations. The basis for the hypothetical is flawed so any answer would be meaningless.

3 - This part perpetuates the nonsense that Dem's and libs support the terrorists. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Does that answer your question?

Answer 9

1. Yes, I would still be against it if it was for the same reasons that the Republicans lied about.
2. Yes, still anti-war, we trade arms, have no control what is done with them after they are traded and end up fighting our own technology.
3. Maybe, but I think that puts you on the same level as the terrorist.
4. And I do not like being lied to, that is why I am not fond of our president, it has nothing to do with dems or reps or liberals and conservatives. I am an American, therefore I am entitled to my point of view.

Answer 10

Let's just say this...I am loyal to me and my thoughts. I never put the party line or the reputation of the President before me. I think there is questionable motives behind going to war. I think when the dust clears and Iran is strengthen because of the US Foreign Policy blunder, which in turn will strengthen Hezbollah...you'll agree that maybe this wasn't the move to make. I would criticized any person in charge of any party who I thought was not acting in the best interest of the country. A thinking person never follows a party or a dogma blindly...only a fool does.