LIBERALS: ASKING SAME QUESTION ABOUT IRAQ...over and over and over again....?

Question

WHy is it the liberals YA have to ask why Bush is in Iraq 100 times over? Can they not read the facts in the newspapers, TV, even here with a lot of YA users being very well-informed and educated beyond the propaganda the leftist media churns out to cause dissension and division amongst Americans. Please: Explain Liberals, what about this IRAQ Sunni-Shia infighting for a hundred years-war don't you get?

THE War between SUnni and Shia IS NOT IN CHECK! WHO DO YOU THINK IS KILLING AND BOMBING IN IRAQ?
THEY ARE SLAUGHTERING HUNDREDS! READ THE NEWSPAPERS< LIBERALS!

Answer 1

they like to complain the most out of all political minds.

Answer 2

Look, almost EVERYBODY, left and right, are confused about why we went into Iraq.
We went in because of Saddams defiance of UN Sanctions put into place after the first Gulf War. Saddam continuously violated the no fly zones. Saddam kept the UN Weapons inspectors from doing their job. The UN and most of the worlds intelligence agencies believed Saddam had WMD's.
The war on terrorism was taken up in Afghanistan, which is where most of them ran to after the first gulf war.
Get the facts straight, quit listening to the propaganda that the press is putting out. That goes for all of the press, left and right. They have skewered the facts sooo much, that now even the military doesn't know why we are there. We got rid of Saddam, gave the Iraqi's a government, lost sight of the WMD's. Now it is time to leave.
No, I am not a liberal.
Yes I support the President. and I will continue to support him for as long as he feel the troops should stay there. There must be a reason why he wants to keep them there. Maybe there is something else afoot that the treasonous press hasn't gotten wind of.

Answer 3

Um, the reasons Bush gave the public for being there didn't originally include policing the age-old conflict between Sunni and Shia - if you're going to complain about people not reading the paper, you might read it yourself. Keep in mind that the Sunni-Shia infighting would still be in check if a completely butter-fingered fool hadn't been so arrogant as to think he could just waltz into the country and slap a new government into place.

Answer 4

You want to rant? Let's rant, I'm feeling froggy this morning.

I guess it's because they aren't satisfied by the complete and utter bullshyt we've been fed since the beginning of this war. Out of all the bogus reasons we were given for going into Iraq, the centuries old fight between Sunni and Shia sure as hell wasn't one of them. But it IS what is keeping our forces there policing a civil war for the Iraqi's while Al Queda grows in strength in the outer areas of Iraq and Afghanistan. You 30%er's have stuck your heads so far in the sand all we can see is your back ends sticking out and that's just where your rant is coming from.

This Administration is so incompetent that we've got Dick Cheney spouting complete lies about how Iraq was involved in 9/11 on the same frigging day it was announced from the White House no less, that it is official that Iraq had zero, zip, nothing to do with 9/11. Then we've got Bush, to top it all off, who keeps saying the surge will work, give it time and his main general Petraeus, who has the following to say:

"There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to
the insurgency of Iraq," Petraeus told a news conference, adding that political negotiations were crucial to forging any lasting peace.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/08/iraq.petraeus/index.html

But will Bush put any real pressure on the Iraqis to get their political act together? He hasn't so far, he gives them demands that have no teeth in them and Maliki thumbs his nose at him.

This war is a study in incompetence and bad planning and the resulting chaos is growing, not abating. Your grandchildren will read in their history books about this war one day, and about The Decider, and it will be used as an example of how NOT to conduct war and divide a nation.

By the way, I'm not a liberal. I'm one of those moderates that saw the urgent need to put some checks and balances on Bush and voted to do so. Like it or not, it's not just liberals that have a real problem with this Administration and this war. We know that Al Queda has to be dealt with. We also know that small forces of Al Queda help keep us busy in Baghdad and give Bush a way to keep saying we're in Baghdad to fight the terrorists, while their main forces cause havoc and build strength in the outer regions. You need to get informed. And if you're going to post rants against liberals and the war at least choose a reason that was given for going to war in the first place - instead of using the reason we're now stuck in Baghdad, which The Decider caused all on his own. He's going to Decide us all into WW III if Congress doesn't keep a leash on him.

Answer 5

the problem i have with the war is: how is their war our problem? countries in Africa have been fighting for hundreds of years, does that mean we should invade their country? there are wars all over the world that don't involve us, yet we involve ourselves in Iraq, why?

Bush already said that he was ending major ground operations in Iraq, that was what? 3-4 years ago??? we're just causing tension now, everyone hates us there, let them settle their own disputes like we do with everyone else.

Answer 6

DON'T DRINK THE KOOL-AID...

Explain, original poster, do you really think the US will be able to END said infighting amongst these two factions? How many American bodies are we going to throw at it?

Answer 7

Bush and people like you claim the war is legitimate, but have never given an answer.

You talk about the Shiite-Sunni fighting, but that was kept in check and was unleashed AFTER we invaded, took out Saddam, and didn't have enough troops to maintain security.

Bush essentially claimed we HAD to invade as a matter of self-defense. Not for building democracy and imposing it at the point of a gun. All the claims about the IMMEDIATE "threat" of Saddam has not only proved to be false, but has been shown to be something we knew was false going in.

Since all the reasons given were disproven, since we removed Saddam and had him executed, are we really going to solve fighting which, as you pointed out, goes back hundreds of years in it's roots, by standing in the middle and getting caught in the crossfire?

The reason why it keeps getting asked, is because, like you did above, instead of actually answering, you point to the debunked crap and claim the answers were given.

When the question is honestly answered, then the question won't be asked any more.

"Leftist media".... what a freaking joke. They unquestioningly cheerleaded on this and have refused to say anything about the repeated and blatant lies. When the facts are finally pointed out, then you claim it's somehow leftist. Pull your head out of the sand, and out of any orifices, and wake up.

EDIT: Learn how to read. I didn't say the fighting IS in check, I said, BEFORE we invaded, it WAS kept in check by Saddams brutal rule. I'll connect the dots, since you seem somewhat incapable - if the fighting wasn't going on BEFORE we invaded, it couldn't have been a reason for invasion. The question still remains, why are we there in the first place? The question remains - we can't control it by getting shot at, so why would we stay just to be killed?

Answer 8

HAve YOU READ THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR! That's a great newspaper. And yes, an age old war between sunni and shia is exactly what they are fighting over--land and oil. We are there trying to bring democracy and civil rights' freedoms to these poor people.
But liberals don't care about those lives--only American lives, right?

Answer 9

I'd like to point out that in the question you talk about people overcoming the propaganda in the media, only to later comment that liberals need to read newspapers. I guess it's only propaganda if it isn't what you believe right?

Answer 10

Boy, i do not understand the answer to that query. it really is too complicated for my lazy and stupid recommendations to consider. yet I honestly applaud the considerate, beneficiant spirit with which the question replaced into requested. As an American, it makes me proud to make certain a putting the position those who disagree can gently and rationally share insights about the thanks to resolve the severe issues dealing with us.

Answer 11

well, one reason is because he keeps giving different answers to the same question, first it was because they were behind 9/11, then it was they have nukes, then wmd, now we are up to our necks embroiled in a civil war that we kicked off. The one good thing Sadam did was keep them in line. Yes, he was a very bad person, well after we stopped being his friend that is.

Before our invasion (which we didn't have a plan for) there were no suicide bombers blowing up people every day, it was an oppressive regime that they had there, but it sure kept them in line.

Here are some of your personal god's choice words:

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed."
Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

"And the United States, along with a growing coalition of nations, is resolved to take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm the Iraqi regime. September the 11th, 2001, the American people saw what terrorists could do by turning four airplanes into weapons. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons."
Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

(woohoo we have wide open borders on both ends of the country, way to go security!)

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

"He said he wouldn't have chemical weapons, he's got them."
Source: Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).

and its the liberals who need to pull our heads out of the sand?