Why don't the Con Artists like being called "War Mongerers" re: Iraq?

Question

They cheer lustfully for war in Iraq, which had no justification to begin with.

They say it's not about getting Iraq's oil... fine.

They know it's definitely not about getting Bin Laden, he's not in Iraq unless he's as dumb as the Dubya.

So, what part of War Mongerer doesn't describe the Republicans here who say "stay the course, the war is going so well!"?

Answer 1

Some people just want to cheer for a fight, see blood spilled in vain, and watch as the credibility of a great nation goes down the tubes.

You get the feeling that they want "the surge" to continue forever... of course most of them will probably come closest to actual war is cheering for it on places like this. Their spirit runs high, but the reality is that the real brave men and women are getting burnt out not because they are weak, but because they are tired of fighting a war created by lies and seeing their efforts merely used as election year rhetoric by a quickly fading political party.

So cheer the war on, support the war! Oh yeah and the troops too... it's probably the only solution they can come up with to any problem for them anyway.

Don't bother trying to change them, it's festered through many a year... the terrorists that wish to do innocent lives harm and the warmongers were probably made for each other.

Answer 2

because that was NOT what it was ever about. what this was was about is and was defending your right to display and incredible amount of naivete in the face of a very real danger demonstrated in nyc in 911. I LIVED IT AND WHEN YOU LIVE IN THAT HORROR FROM DAY TO DAY YOUR EXPECTATIONS AND IDEAS BECOME CLEAR, but perhaps you read about it and became one of the peace activists like what almost destroyed this country in w w two. something liberal extremists never seem to get is that burying your head in the sand with a call for unilateral surrender (read that aka harry reid) doesnt make your country stronger or more unified. it makes you more threatened and possibly injured or dead through another attack from al qaeda. thats precisely why people from HIS OWN PARTY even cautioned harry that wasnt the way to proceed.
and as far as the war mongerers being republican. im definitely not in agreement with the title but lets put that aside for a moment. for some odd reason, again, liberal extremists keep wanting to whine about this being "bushs" war. lets share a quick comment here from the furthest thing from being a responsible conservative you could find

! "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
but then again if you dont even believe your own front runner, who would you believe.

you lose on this one liberal,....have a nice day.

Answer 3

War monger is such a negative term, and neo-conservatives always paint themselves so positively. How dare you insult people with such a noble vision for the world!

And even though they support wars, neo-conservatives believe their ideal of "spreading democracy" justifies any war.

Bush has such a strong belief in this rationalization that when he retires, he's opening a Freedom Institute in Dallas to promote the democratization of the rest of the world.

Answer 4

The Act found that Iraq had, between 1980 and 1998 (1) committed various and significant violations of International Law, (2) had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed to following the Gulf War and (3) further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives[2] and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[3] US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998. The law's stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." Specifically, Congress made findings of past Iraqi military actions in violation of International Law and that Iraq had denied entry of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) inspectors into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction. Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Mearly following orders Sir!

If we were War Mongers would would have killed everyone taken the "OIL" and Kept the Land. Sorry I cannot disagree with you more.


Kenygurl, From here in Iraq and In uniform I have to say you have a lot to learn. You have to read the UN resolutions and The American Law signed By Bill Clinton. Do not let the Lib mantra about WMD's burn a hole in your head.

Answer 5

Better a conservative warmongerer than a liberal surrender monkey. Seriously, I don't think I could go through life having to present a formal declaration of surrender after a foodfight.

Answer 6

I have no objection to being called a warmonger. As an inactive Marine I am still a finely tuned instrument of death praying for war.

I prefer being a warmonger to being a gutless surrender monkey.

Answer 7

Truth hurts

Answer 8

They support the war based on lies, and don't like it when you say they're war robots.

I guess they just don't like the truth. Plain and simple.

Answer 9

They don't like it because they support war no matter what the cause or what the end result is... which implies stupidity.

Answer 10

Who said they don't like it? How many times have you heard Bush say he is a war president?