Since the libs believe we should only go after those that directly attack us...?

Question

should we just shut our intelligence agencies down and wait for the assault?

It appears we should do nothing in a pre-emptive manner. Libs love to give every last chance and every bennefit of the doubt possible to every criminal or terrorist out there. Look how they deffend Saddam. He was such a good little dictator... never hurt a fly. Sure... he was bragging about his WMD program to the world and wouldn't let UN inspectors into certain areas... but I'm sure he wasn't doing anything bad.... And the mustard gas thing with the Kurds... well, he was just trying to help his people out... that was all a misunderstanding that could have been worked out with hearty little pow wow. And I'm sure he stopped producing those toxins right after the whole killing hundreds of thousands of Kurds....

Cassandra... I'm not the one that is embarrassed.. I don't defend the likes of Saddam... I am glad we went in and took him out... even if he had nothing to do with 9/11

BTW... Cassandra... and how many innocent Iraqis have our troops "murdered"? The grossly overexaggerated 600 + thousand number? And you should be embarrassed for calling our troops murderes... I bet you claim to support them as well. If we didn't care about Iraqi citizens... we would have bombed the garbage out of Iraq and been done with it already.

acco... if you can't think of an answer you don't "have to" answer this question.

Ted and Rian... We just didn't randomly attack Iraq... Libs love the UN so much.. but I wonder why they don't support their own resolutions? Exactly how many chances do we give Saddam? How many resolutions? You clearly represent the question... you believe we should have waited for Saddam to attack the US before doing anything. We should not have used intelligence gathered by more than just our nation and we should have just let it slide. Who cares what the intelligence said and what the resolutions say... until you see it first hand you are ill prepared to do anything. When you see the gun and wait for the bullet to hit... it's usually a bit too late.. and Ted... we can't be every where all at once... though I'm sure you would have a problem if we attacked any of those nations to oust a dictator....

TJefferson.... WOW! So you compare our troops to Nazis... nice! And you believe America should have just let Hitler do his thing because there might be collateral damage in the war. Innocents might get in the way... It does happen in war... and yes... you may get one or two bad guys, even in our own uniforms that do horrible things in wartime... that is why they are facing charges... we don't just let them off the hook... where is your outrage at the terrorists who behead our soldiers? You probably feel they deserve it as all you can do is call our soldiers murderers and rapists. BTW... the two links for the civilian body count... the more accurate one shows at max 70,000... (who most of by the way are killed in terrorist attacks) and the other shows upwards of 300,000. good research.

wyldfr... do you know how many threats the US recieves on a daily basis? Is the President to personally address every one? or do we have a few more people in the government to help with that? Why didn't Billy Boy take Bin Laden out when he was offered to him twice?... you know... as long as we are playing the shoulda coulda woulda game...

IItrix... Clinton bombed abbandon terrorist training camps... and where was the outrage for him bombing Iraq? I never remember Iraq attack us during his administration? hmmmm... must have had something to do with him disgracing the Oval Office.

Cassandra... Just look at how your lib freinds answered this question and the others I have posted... all support Saddam like you... All wish he was still in power... All wish we didn't remove him...

Acco.... what is a "lab top"?

Answer 1

I think liberals would rather us wait around and be attacked. I think no one ever said that Iraq was involved in 9/11. I think what was said was that Iraq was a sponser of international terrorism, which they were, and that they had weapons of mass destruction and presented a threat to the United States. I still believe that they did. The CIA, the Russians, and the British MI-6 all thought he had weapons of mass destruction. He did listen to the CIA. If Saddam killed people with WMD's and had stores of them, which he did unless you would like to argue the thousands of gassed kurds and thousands of gassed shia in the south, where did they go. If they were destroyed, why wouldn't he show us the evidence? If he had them and he didn't destroy them, where are they now? It is amazing how his regime thumbed their noses at the internation community and especially the United States with all of his political games and false promises, and it took so long to kill him and remove his regime. I guess the innocent Iraqis we are "murdering" are the ones strapping explosives on their children and shooting at American soldiers. Liberals would refuse to believe anything good ever comes from a war and that everything can be solved through diplomatic means. I mean look how great diplomacy has worked with North KOREA. Pre-emptive war works, plain and simple, and we should cement it into policy. Amazing how after we destroyed Iraq, the Koreans, the Liberians, and the Iranians were waiting at our front door ready to give into our demands. Modern day liberals are a insult to the word "liberal" and an insult to liberals of the past.

Answer 2

I read a lot of the answers before I decided to answer this one myself.
Before I start let me mention I am a VETERAN.

I am offended that I fought in a war to help keep this country and it's ideals alive, and now I see so many Americans showing no respect for what we have!
I do defend your right to speak your mind, it is one of the basic freedoms that make this the greatest country on earth, however i wish those of you who feel the need to speak your mind would do just that and speak your OWN thoughts, instead of regurgitating some pantie waist Communist crap.

The UN had ordered Iraq to make it's self available to weapons inspectors for OVER 12 years they gave the UN the run around, and now you have the nerve to say there are no WMDs, HELLO!!!!!! Wake up, think about it this way:
The local Police department knocks on the door of a drug dealer and asks to search for the drugs that an informant has told them are there, the Drug Dealer say " go away" the police leave and come back again and again only to get the same response, then one day they say to hell with it and raid the place, but find no drugs, do you really think the drugs were never there?

Answer 3

I will, firstly, admit you have a point. And I want people to realize that there is a foolishness in that idea. But you also have to admit that entering Iraq, though possibly with good intentions has ended up screwing up thousands, if not millions of more lives than if we hadn't. That we were lied to about WMD's (whether or not Bush KNEW there weren't any I won't speculate here. It just wasn't what we were told), and that we attacked the least dangerous of the 3 in the Axis of Evil. Not only that, but after claiming that we weren't to negotiate with those 3. We've since started negotiations with the other two.

I admit Saddam was a horrible man. And I'm so glad he's gone. But I will never admit that Iraq has been a good choice.

As for our security policy. We can't just attack anyone right off the bat with faulty information like Iraq. Our info was so faulty that we have yet to find the WMD's and don't bother posting some lame conservative-biase site saying we foudn large quantities. We didn't. Give up. To tell you the truth, if a president approaced the country and said AGAIN that we needed to strike a country that was about to attack us, I would be more apt to agree than not. Assuming of course the intelligence seemed rock solid. There's no way to say if we're being lied to or not and obviously waiting around isn't doing anything.

Our intelligence reports on Iraq were WRONG. And therefore I am in the right/clear to blame Bush and his intelligence staff. He failed the US and many Iraqi civilians that were hoping for a better life after Saddam.

Answer 4

Saddam didn't have any WMD's or a WMD program that was proven before the war. He didn't brag about his WMD program, he didn't have one and everyone knew it, even the UN. That's why the UN didn't give Bush the go ahead on a pre-emptive strike against Saddam. Clinton bombed Iraq continuously throughout the 90's which pretty much guaranteed there would be no WMD's. Look it up. He targeted their bases and weapons sites. The entire world knew it. But you cons during the 90's accused him of wagging the dog because of Monica. The entire Kurd thing happened before Clinton got into office and guess who cleared the way for Saddam to get those Chemical weapons from Germany? You got it, it was your pals Rumsfeld and Cheney. At least get the information right before you accuse liberals of anything.

Answer 5

Please reward to me any case of a terrorist from Iraq committing an act of terrorism on US soil? Because this has now not, to my capabilities, ever occurred. The terrorists at nine/eleven had been traditionally Saudis. The US isn't combating anti-US terrorists in Iraq. It is combating insurgents who dislike the reward Iraqi govt that the US set up after the autumn of Saddam. There is not any proof to endorse that the insurgency has any curiosity in taking the battle to the US; its pursuits are to get US infantrymen out of Iraqi territory, and overthrow the Iraqi govt. There are separate Sunni, Shia and Kurd insurgencies, and none of them has any curiosity in attacking the US hometown (regardless that they are going to assault US infantrymen at the same time the ones infantrymen are in Iraq). Also: "If your now not frightened of terrorists attacking us, then you're a coward." Bizarre. I regularly proposal cowards had been persons who had been afraid, now not persons who were not.

Answer 6

Liberal by its definition is a reactionary belief. According to a liberal the redistribution of wealth occurs as a result of war and therefore a good thing. If we are prepared for the poor 3rd world countries to invade, then we are preventing that redistribution of wealth.

For those who argue about Iraq and our reasons for being there, please remember this. It was a Clinton appointee that was head of the CIA that provided the information to Bush about Bin Laden and 9-11, Afgahnistan, and the WMD's of Iraq.

Answer 7

No one is suggesting getting rid of intelligence agencies, that's ridiculous. US attacks overseas creates MORE terrorists, whether you depose a dictator or assassinate a group leader. There are MORE people out there who want to kill me today than there were on 9/11, and that's a FACT. Our good intentions always have consequences that come back to bite us in the a*s years down the road. I prefer to live and let live. Secure our borders, watch what others are doing, but above all else, DO NOT GIVE PEOPLE REASONS TO WANT TO KILL US.

Answer 8

O.k. let's assume you attacked the Iraqi's because Saddam was a horrible murdering dictator. So why haven't you attacked Zimbabwe for the same reasons? Or why did you support the murder of Allende in Chile so that you could support that really nice man Pinochet? And then, why didn't you attack him because you were wrong.?
Those are the reasons you should not attack other countries unless they directly threaten you as a nation and there are many more.

Edit. I think you would still be waiting for Iraq to attack America. In fact I would stake my life on the fact that they never would have.
You are wrong about my attitude to ousting dictators. If it was done for that reason alone and without picking and choosing who you help, that would be fine. But that's not how it works and you know as well as I that the U.S. government is not averse to installing or supporting the most hideous of dictators if it suits their purpose. Saddam was one Pinochet, another. Need I go on?

Answer 9

Are you asking about these kinds of murders

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063000495.html

where our troops are actually raping and killing innocent people who are non-combatant related?

Or are you asking about the innocent civilians killed by our bombings? including our war crime of bombing civilian populations and infrastructure?

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm

Do you support that? Do you think Germans should have 'supported the troops?' When the troops were being used by a madman for immoral ends? All of our troops should have refused the illegal orders to participate in this war, yes.

I say that as a military dependent who spent almost her whole childhood overseas. We don't think much of the military being used like this. Or led like this.

Answer 10

This is really old stuff and pretty much a misrepresentation. As long as we're doing should'a could'a would'a, think about this. How much did Bush have use for the CIA and our security, when in the Presidential Daily Breifing on August 6, 2001, Bush learned that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US, yet he continued his vacation and did nothing to prevent 911?