Libs: Whay do you say we shuld have never gone to Iraq and therefore you wish Saddam was still in power?

Answer 1

They are miffed that they (the dims) "never" had the chance to do what GWB is doing: building a democracy from the ground up. Clinton was too busy scoring/chasing tail and IGNORING the threat (Remember the embassies in Africa and the hole in the USS Cole?) during his tenure to bother with the effort. And JFK/LBJ were too busy with the out-dated FDR/Truman model to realize the changes the world experienced AFTER WWII. With the FDR/Truman model, you destroy everything, like Europe, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, then you build from the ground up.

We can't do that any longer. Another issue that JFK/LBJ couldn't embrace was the fact that you have to throw these people some bones in terms of elections and whet their appetities to the idea. You may not get all of them, but enough of them should "see the light" to make it easier on the effort of democratization.

Let me state this again, here. The long-term plan is to establish nacent democracies on BOTH sides of Iran so that the Iranians can see for themselves, first hand, how wonderful it is to live under a democracy and want this for their families and themselves. We shouldn't have to fire a single shot at them in anger. Granted, the leadership in Iran will have to kill MANY Iranians before it is taken down from within, and this is why Iran is pursuing nuclear, or as GWB likes to say, "New-cue-lar," weapons. Ahmadinejad will have his finger on-the-button in downtown Tehran and be asking everyone to decide between democracy and death or islamofascism and life.

You're not going to hear the same pap from me that you hear in the Drive-by-media (DBM) about NO WMD or "Bush did it just for the oil." If THAT were the case, then why are prices so high still? *laughter*

Also, Libs tend to have a static understanding of the world. For example, Saddam should STILL be there because he was there BEFORE we attacked the country. On the AGW front, they like to think down the lines of,

"The weather today is how the weather has always been and should ALWAYS be, and we tiny humans CANNOT be allowed to change it in ANY manner." The FACT that the weather has ALWAYS changed and that the sun is transient in terms of its output is a concept that eludes them completeley. Things must remain static, come hell or high water, and they will make you PAY MORE taxes to keep it the way they think it ought to be!

They also want to be the winners, at all times, and since the Soviets lost the Cold War, the media need to rewrite the history books to make sure that they get painted as Reagan supporters. Contrary to what Dan Rather will tell you, the media opposed Ronald Reagan's attempts to fight the cold war in the '80s. They called him all sorts of names back then, like many today refer to GWB as Bushitler today. That name has more than ONE doble-entendre, but let's not go there. This is a family show, after all. Dan is out there trying to repaint the media as a group that supported Reagan, when the truth to it is that they failed to support him and cried like babies when the Iron Curtain fell in the early '90s.

Forgive me for thinking "outside" the box and refusing to toe the media's line.

Answer 2

I often wonder why we didn't finish the job the first time, when George the First was in office, when we had international support, when we walked right up to Saddam's front door and turned around and left. Or why did we not support the pro- American revolutionary's when they came very close to overthrowing Saddam shortly after the Gulf War. All they needed was a little help from the US but the first Bush administration refused, allowing Saddam to gain the upper hand and they were all massacred. George the first had ample opportunity to take out Saddam and didn't. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, we should have taken care of Afghanistan first, then Iran.

Answer 3

Syllogism is a crude way to argue. That would be like me asking you: Why do you use Yahoo and therefore hate Google? See? That doesn't sound very accurate.

Saddam was ousted because he switched to Euros instead of dollars. This angered our little tin-pot arbolita in office.

The US killed a whole lot more people in Iraq with that awful trade embargo back in 1990 (estimated to be over a million). Our current "liberation" of the Iraq people has over thirty-thousand Iraqi deaths on our hands. How many deaths does it take before it's called a genocide?

Saddam's role in gassing the Kurds during the Iran/Iraq war is even in question.

By the way, before we continue, are you even qualified to debate such a serious matter? Can you tell the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni? Which is associated with al qaeda (a creature of the CIA anyway)?

Answer 4

Saddam was a two bit dictator who was no threat to the US. Like most dictators he abused his power, ruled Iraq with a violent side, and as a result tolerated no terrorists in his country. Sometimes a evil that you know is far better than the evil we've unleashed by invading. It has become very clear what this invasion was about from the beginning ..... control of Iraqi oil fields.

Answer 5

Not a lib here, but I think when Saddam was ousted , & the war was officially over (according) to Bush, we should have pulled back to encompass the enitre country, & let them fight it out. Thus the border with Iran would have been guarded (since this is where most of the weapons are coming from)
and a bunch more soldiers could have come home, & to afghanistan to finish what they started, (if he's EVen still there).

Answer 6

NO! Of course not!

But there are dozens of dictators and evil regimes in the world. Should we invade them all? No, because we can't. We simply don't have the manpower to go out liberating everybody, and even when we try, it often backfires, as we've seen. We have to stick with the ones that are in our national interest to invade. That's why Bush didn't say we were invading Iraq to free its people, he said it was because of WMDs. I was thrilled that Saddam was toppled. But look at the price we've paid.

So I ask YOU: why haven't you advocated invading all those other dictatorships? Do you want them to stay in power? Yes or no?

Answer 7

Saddam was a ruthless dictator. Who oppressed his people and destroyed lives.

But then again so is Castro. Why did we not invade Cuba?

Or right no oil.

Saddam when we invaded Iraq was what could be called a contained threat. We knew where he was and we knew we could if need be take him out. We invade for the wrong reasons and because of that the man who killed my friends and family at the World Trade Center: Osman Bin Linden is still free

Oh and Castro and his brother are still ruthless dictators who oppress their people

When are we invading Cuba again?

Oh that is right no oil

Answer 8

Because now there are thousands of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, where there weren't before.

Because now Iran is exerting an influence in Iraq that it couldn't before.

Because now there is a civil war going on in Iraq where there wasn't one before.

Because we have sacrificed 3,500 valiant Americans over there in Fubariyah, for none of the reasons that Bush told us we had to fight for.

Because invading Iraq gave Al-Qaeda the biggest recruitment and training center they could ever have hoped for.

Because Saddamn was no threat to us (except for the fact that he was taking Euros in payment for his oil instead of dollars, which is hardly worth what this war has cost us)

Because the invasion is illegitimate under international law.

How many more reasons do you want?

Answer 9

Well they all said we should back as for as 1998, and also agreed that Saddam needed to be taken out, and voted for the war, which meant stop Saddam also. Guess they have memory loss or something. Oh well, they did vote yes to more funds for the war and troops, even though later, they will say they did not. Depends on how many votes they can get as to what they will say, even though last election, they broke their promises immediately. Go figure.

Answer 10

Iraq was not a terrorists country. It sure is now. Saddam was a bad guy , there are lots of bad guys. Bush picked this one because his country has allot of oil. You don't see Bush down in Africa trying to save all those people do you?Bush figured he could go in and steal the oil without much of a fight because the people did not like Saddam Hussein. He didn't figure the terrorists would flood the country to keep him from stealing the oil.Like I said there are allot of bad guys.