Liberals or anyone else, please answer this two part question?

Question

1.Everyday Liberals on TV, in the Newspapers, or on this site are always demanding the withdrawal of American Troops from Iraq. In the same breath they talk about how we should send Troops Dufar. Why is the Civil War in Dufar more important than stopping the Sectarian violence in Iraq?

(The reason why it is sectarian violence in Iraq is because it mostly revenges of the Shiites to the Sunnis for the years they we persecuted under Saddam, and vice versa. Dufar is a Civil War because one group, or actually tribe, is trying to take over the whole government.)

2.I read daily on this site where people are saying the President is taking away Constitutional Rights. Please cite specific examples on how you are less free now than you were before September 11?

(Also if you do not have any examples of how it has affected you directly, please talk about what all Constitutional Rights were taken from American Citizens during the American Civil War by President Lincoln.)


Thank you

Golden: If all the Iraqis had embraced Democracy after Suddam was taken out of power, we would have been gone by now. A small group chose not to, so we are having to stabilize the country before we leave it. Also, just what the news (Which news are you talking about CNN, MSNBC, CBS?) How has the President made YOU less free...you answer was rhetoric...

Now to all the people who gave me a laundry list of items, that really only affect Terrorist...compare them to what Lincoln did during the Civil War...and cora if you had read the Geneva Convention, Like I have, you would know during war time POWs or Enemy Combatants can be held with out trial until the end of said war...Illegal Combatants can be executed on site...

Robert: What part of my question is inaccurate? So you are saying it was better to let Saddam stay in power and kill hundreds of thousands of people?

For you who say we are not in a Civil War: What Constitutional Rights were taken during WWII by FDR...please I want to knwo if you really know what you are talking about or just spitting out facts you heard on TV...

Roadkill: I was using Lincon as an example of how far other President have went to take away freedom...I am a Southerner I I feel Lincoln violated our Constitutional Rights to rise up against a overbearing Federal Government, not to mention taking away American Citizens land and giving it away...

I have not felt any difference since 9/11 execpt it takes about 10 minutes longer to get to my gate at the airport...if you are not calling Iraq, then you have nothing to worry about...

I know History and I know Politics...read my Bio...so I do not pay any attention the Mainstream Media...I want you Liberals to do a little homework:

What does the Geneva Convention say about POWs, Enemy Combatants, and Illegal Combatants? Who does the Convention apply to? (Just google Geneva Convention)

2. What Constitutional Rights were taken away during the American Civil War and World War II?

The answers may suprise you...

Answer 1

1. I don't think we are in Iraq to stop the Sunni's and Shiites from killing each other. But because we removed Saddam and don't want Terrorist groups taking over the place while the Sunnis and Shiites are killing each other. Most of the violence is coming from foreign fighters setting off car bombs and trying to keep the Sunni's and Shiites stirred up. It serves our national interest to prevent a Terrorist take over of Iraq. Where as the Darfur situation however, terrible it is, doesn't impact our national interest.

2. This isn't the Civil War and Bush or anyother president is not going to get away with the stunts pulled by Lincoln. Such as arresting the entire Maryland legislature to prevent them from voting for seccession, creating the phony State of West Virginia out of the Western counties of the Real state of Virginia. Or hanging teenagers in Little Rock, see William O'Dodd. I guess people talking about Lincoln sets me off.

Answer 2

1.Why is the Civil War in Dufar more important than stopping the Sectarian violence in Iraq?

Darfur is not a civil war...it's state sponsored genocide.
The war in Iraq is a civil war...."sectarian violence" is just another way of saying civil war without saying civil war. It does consist of revenge killings..but it is mostly a power struggle between factions.(civil war)

2. I read daily on this site where people are saying the President is taking away Constitutional Rights. Please cite specific examples on how you are less free now than you were before September 11?

I've never said i've lost any rights....I don't believe anyone can take rights away that I believe I have no matter what law they try to pass... But it would appear that there is a huge campaign by the Bush administration to silence dissenters. Example (free speech zones)... This is where protestors are herded like cattle into chainlink fencing where they are surrounded by police with shotguns that fire bean bags or rubber bullets......however, Bush supporters are welcomed to line the streets where Bush's limo will arrive so that the media will show how beloved our president is for anyone tuning in. This practice...which many will argue is illegal... encroaches on the right to peacful assembly and free speech. This practice has occurred throughout history since the 70's...but never carried out to this degree under Bush.

My beef with Bush is mostly because he's a chronic liar.

Answer 3

1: I have never claimed to send troops to Dar fur. I want troops out of Iraq , so that we (America) can finally take it to the terrorists main infrastructure in the mountains of Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India. Iraq is not the terrorists main concern it is actually recorded in a DOD document (can't remember where I read it) only 15% of all attacks against our troops are from Al-Qaeda fighters. That is why I believe President Bush is doing a horrible job because his ideology won't allow him to actually go after the real terrorists.
Dar fur I could care less about, it's not an American problem , and neither is Iraq.

2. The U.S. Patriot act has given the Bush Admin, and the FBI full permission to record Americans phone conversations, and computer information transmissions. This goes against the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. And though it does not affect me personally. How do I know for a fact that the FBI and the Bush Admin are not reading what I am typing at this exact moment? If the government has the power to do something, without my knowledge or consent. Then I have to assume that they are doing so, until they are no longer able to do so.

Answer 4

1. We cause much of the sectarian violence in Iraq because no one will support the government we back. This is because we have lost our credibility in the area because we torture, imprison without trial, use American contractors instead of native Iraqis, and in general just do not understand the Iraqis.

-------------------------------UPDATE---------------------------------------
2. Wow! An actual response. Let's go over it:

1. [In general these laws] 'Only effect terrorists'.
That is wrong. If we thought we could prove they were terrorists, we would arrest them. 90% of the people detained in Abu Graib were released without trial (the figure for Guantamano is also high). All the immigrants illegally detained during the days after 911, none of them sent to trial.
Goto 4.

2. 'Compare to Lincoln, WWII, Revolutionary WAR'. Forget it man! We can't even agree on what is happening today! I tell you what, if we agree on the facts today, I would be happy to argue with you Lincon, WWII and the Revolutionary War.


3. 'Pows or enemy combatants held without trial until the war ends'. That is not President Bush's assertion. He claims the right to pick anyone up anywhere, US Citizen or not to indefinitely detain them without trial. That is an impeachable offense and a violation of the constitution.

Now, many at Guantanamo were picked up on the battlefield, and for these, you may have a point. In the case of invasion where the courts cannot operate, then you might have a point. But of course the courts operate everyday and all these people should have a right to trial or let go as prisoners of war according to the Geneva conventions (and our own law which backs up the Geneva contentions).

Answer 5

I don't have any strong feelings for or against sending troops to Darfur. Given the American track record lately, Darfur is probably better off without American "help." As for Iraq, it's hard to say what the best way to deal with the situation is. Pulling out immediately would leave chaos behind, and would be another American policy failure for the world to point at. Staying indefinitely isn't an option either. Mainly, I'm angry that an idiot who looks like a smirking chimpanzee created this mess in the first place.

As for liberties lost by Americans, that's easy. The government now wiretaps its citizens without any warrants, and therefore without any restraint on its possible abuse of this power--that would be a loss of the right to privacy. The government can arrest citizens and ship them off to Guantanomo Bay, where they have no legal recourse or representation; this happened to an American who was wrongly labelled a terrorist. The President and Vice President are no longer accountable to anyone; they can (and have) act like dictators with no restraints on their power. The thousands of little things that make life more difficult, such as lame "security" measures such as not being allowed to carry liquids more than 3 oz on board an airplane. The government has much fewer restraints on its power than it did before George W. Bush came into office.

Answer 6

1. the people of Darfur want us there to stop the violence, they are asking for our help. Also, we have international support. Lastly, that is one sided violence directed at another side, not just an unstable country. You are comparing apples and oranges. Would you use WW2 to justify Vietnam?

2. Habeas Corpus, warrant less wiretapping, unlawful imprisonment, etc. There are a number of rights that have been changes or taken away by things like the Patriot Act. It affects me directly because I am an American. If you are looking for a specific example of this happening to me, I can't give you that. But that means you would also probably support banning of all guns, since I don't personally own a gun. I also don't agree with taking away rights during the Civil War, WW2, or any other war.

Answer 7

Despite the many factual erros in question 1 I will do my best to supply answers to both.

1. Darfur is, in fact, a racist genocie being perpetrated by Arab Muslims in control of the Sudanese government against non-Muslim black Africans in the south of the country. Iraq was a nation where sectarian violence was kept under control by Saddam's Sunni Baath Party. This would have continued to be the case, had the US not destroyed Iraq unnecessarily, and based on a series of lies.

Stopping genocide is morally and polticially superior to continuing the unnecessary destruction of a nation that posed no threat to the US.

2. Warrantless wiretaps, unrestricted use of National Security Letters, Bush's signing statements are the big three in my book. It's essentially impossible to know how I've been personally effected by any of these since this a government that demands secrecy at all levels. Oh, and the US Civil War can in no way be used as a point of reference for this military folly of choice in Iraq.

Addenda:
The inaccuracy of the question is based upon the contention that Sudan is in the midst of a civil war for control of the government. The government has long been solely in the hands of Arabs. There is not contest for it, nor is this a tribal conflict. Darfur is a case of those in power commiting genocide against those with no power.

Oh, and for your trying to equate limiting civil liberties over the fictitiously-al Qaeda-linked Iraq versus the US Civil War or WWII, you're really grasping at straws. In WWII we actually went to war with the nation that attacked us at Pearl Harbor. There simply is no rational comparison. However, I understand how government-fostered paranoia has warped many American's minds to the point needing to believe there are similarities.

Answer 8

1. Short answer - because we never should have invaded Iraq in the first place. If we hadn't, we wouldn't have created the problem.

2. Easily answered by others. Don't you read the news?

Answer 9

1. I am for humanitarian warfare efforts and would support the same in Iraq. That is in NOT the reason presented as to why as we are in Iraq.

2. I think the President is ignoring the Constitution and all you have to do is look at the news to see why.

Edit: I am not aware of any personal freedom I have lost. The news I was referring to was an article in Washington Post. I don't watch network news, but read a variety of Internet sources every morning.

Answer 10

Answer to 2. Have you flown on an aircraft? Have you tried to check for information under the freedom of information act? Just to mention two items.