Why do Lieberals prefer seeing mass graves being filled in Iraq?

Question

If they had their way Saddam would still be in power and his torture/rape rooms would be having no problems being filled.

Lucky D, were you in one of those rooms?

LMAO, the UN had Saddam under control? Are you talking about the Oil for food scandal? Is that your idea of control?

Answer 1

Luck D....You are an insult to this country and especially the troops. How dare you - freedom of speech came to you at a price paid by others and you should accept it with a little more dignity.

Answer 2

It's funny that on a previous question by someone else, the questioner said to me "what do you mean the oil for food scandal didn't get anyone killed, wake up?"

If Saddam was still in power, there would be a viable opponent to Iran, there would be far far less dead, and the US would be free to pursue terrorists in a meaningful way around the world. The oil for food scandal caused deaths I am sure, but it also saves some people...what we have now is a death factory. Saddam was bad, no doubt, but we actually might be destroying the place trying to save it.

Answer 3

Fanatics can argue this all day and it won't change a thing. Libs vs cons. What a joke. As you well know, saying such a thing is nothing but inciting hateful dialog which is unproductive to say the least.

Iraq has been given the chance for a new life and the factions within the country will not permit it. Until those in Iraq desire a peaceful life, there won't be one no matter what the Libs or Cons do. Face it.

Answer 4

This is what Daddy Bush said about Saddam:

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

I guess he didn't think the torture was so bad.

Answer 5

Remember that picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein? He was our friend when he was the enemy of our enemy( the Ayatollah ). We helped him with money and weaponry. In matters of foreign policy, Niccolo Machiavelli has been our political template. Idealism rarely enters into our decision making when it comes to our self interests. Can you define what a liberal or conservative is? I have a masters degree and I can't. Most of us hold views that are sometimes to the left and sometimes to the right. Only fools never change their views.

Answer 6

Why haven't we invaded all the other dictatorships in the world, huh? Do YOU support them? Do YOU want to invade Cuba, North Korea, China, etc. right now? No? Why not?

This war wasn't sold on getting rid of a dictator, it was sold on WMDs aimed at us, and they weren't there. Don't you dare go around claiming that anyone supports dictators, loser.

Answer 7

Are you talking about the things Saddam did 10 YEARS ago?????????
If yes then you should have attack him then rather than selling him helicopters that were used to spray chemicals and weapons that were used to kill people.UN had Saddam under control,Saddam had Iraq under control.Thank you big american bully for messing up the country and leaving thousands of mothers crying.You arrogance and stupidity should be criminal!

Answer 8

Thats not the reason the US went there. The reasons changed weekly.

This is just the sugar coated reason they give to keep the republicans happy. The republicans are afraid of every country outside the US so its easy to galvanize them for a lengthy thing like Iraq.

All bush has to do is tell them muslims are out to get their freedom.. LOL.. and they will vote to invade anywhere.

Answer 9

The sand is getting really lumpy over there with all of the dead body's.

Answer 10

Now the torture is being done by mercenaries working for American corporations.

You must be so proud.