Why do liberals always seem to get Iraq and Afghanistan confused?

Question

They always say that we attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 (meaning Iraq). Don't they know that we invaded Iraq because of constant UN violations and WMDs (which were real, by the way) and because Saddam and his family and Baath party were ruthless killers? They always seem to confuse Iraq with Afghanistan which we invaded after 9/11 to go after the Taliban which were harboring Al Quaeda which caused 9/11. Why the confusion, liberals?

Answer 1

Youre right of coarse. But I think what happened was there was SO much pressure brought to bear on the White House once Iraq had been secured and no WMD's newer than 1991 were found, the public led by the pharisees, I mean liberals, were screaming for further justification of being in Iraq and at some point the White House engaged them on that point and made a PR campaign to tie Al Queda and Iraq together to appease and silence the liberals. But it backfired.

They should have never done so because like you stated, we werent in Iraq directly because of 9/11.

Answer 2

There's no confusion (and I'm not a liberal).
If Iraq violated UN directives it's their problem. To start with the UN is not a world wide government, it's not affiliated with the USA and non members countries are not obliged to comply with it. The reason why you have that image is that the USA is a powerful member of the UN, approves most of its directives and use that as an excuse to use military force on other countries. Take a look at other UN directives not so favorable to the USA policies and you'll see that the government reaction is not always that strong about the UN.

WMD, real or not, are not a good reason to invade if you take into account that the USA has one of the two largest collection of WMD. Iraq was probably around the 10th place.

Saddam and his party were ruthless killers, no doubt about it. So the USA government decides to waste huge amounts of money from the taxpayer's pockets to stop a gang that killed thousands in the last years while, only in the last year, almost a million americans were murdered (many millions in the last years). Your resources go to solve non-problems while real problems that affect you on a daily basis are ignored.

And don't get me started with the suppression of your civil rights.

All that so you can take a moral stand and show how you're making a better world for everyone. You're taking a moral stand in front of the world and we all can see you while your pockets are being emptied by your own government who is also checking what else you have in there, running a background check on you, locking you behind bars for your own protection, sniffing what you eat, drink or inhale, telling you what to read, see or listen, choosing the right health care for you, telling you how to educate your own kids, taking them away if it thinks you're doing a bad job...

Why people like you always have the real issues confused?

Answer 3

Uh, it's BUSH who confused them, as he used 9/11 as one of the reasons for destroying Iraq.

(If the WMDs were real, why haven't any trace of them ever been found? If that was the reason, why didn't Bush let the UN inspectors continue? Maybe because he was afraid they would continue to find NOTHING? There's lots of evidence that Bush was bent on going ofter SH. He lied about WHY. And he's responsible for the deaths of nearly a million people, and the destruction of an entire country.)

We do NOT go after countries because they are led by ruthless killers. In fact, we often support and aide them. So that wasn't the reason.

Why hasn't Bush made any effort to bring to trial the man who actually WAS behind 9/11? (My guess, he's too grateful.)

We keep reminding the worshippers of the Dictatorial Moron in Chief that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 because the genocidal freak they so worship kept linking them.

And remember Cheney's claim that the ties were "pretty well confirmed" (a couple of years before he claimed he had "never said that")?

Didn't think so.

Answer 4

They flip flop. First they are for attacking the Saddam regime, I am talking about Billary Clinton, John Kerry, and many other Democrats and they believe as everyone did with all the intelligence available that there were ties to Iraq and there were WMD'S. Of course now that Hillary is running, she says she changed her mind, and her vote for the war was a mistake! Liberals only care about what is going on in their immediate surroundings. They do not care if someone around the corner is being murdered, caring less about the mass murders of the Iraqi people, as long as it does not interfere with there lives. They like to gripe about Bush, and criticize anything he does. Witrhout any real evidence of wrong doing.
They are not confused, just unhappy knowing they will have to go to work when we don't get a Nanny State, and pay their own way in life! They hate Capitalism and everything it stands for. If there isn't a big Socialist governement to care for their needs, they are not for it.

Answer 5

do you ever read what your Republican brethren post on here?

they are the only ones that seem confused, as they constantly talk about 9-11 is why we are in Iraq... which I've never seen a liberal say...

why is Iraq part of the war on terror then, according to Bush and basically every Republican I know?

did you ever watch the Republican convention in 2004? almost every speaker mentioned 9-11 and Iraq in the same sentence constantly.

you can't vaguely link the two... to the point where a large part of your own party believers they are linked... and then go and say "but they have nothing to do with each other"

and, just to clarify, we spent about a year and 50,000 troops on Afghanistan... then ran off to Iraq...

now the Taliban and opium production are back big time now....

I think we actually wanted to finish the job... instead of running off to Iraq...

and why do you guys care about the UN all of a sudden? you hate them, but oh, now you care about UN violations?

and if you think the WMDs that Bush was talking about were real... then you sound pretty confused... since we've found no evidence that they existed...

Answer 6

our president Bush made the claim that Iraq was a threat to us but never explained how (being halfway around the world with no weapons that could travel that far or an army to take us on). He also specifically claimed Iraq had supported al-Quaeda and was behind 9/11.

This was a lie. Also most of the terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Why didn't we invade them?

Answer 7

Really? We went after Saddam because he was a bad guy? That's not what Bush said at the time. He claimed they had stockpiles of WMD that could end up in the hands of Al Qaeda. They claimed Iraq was tied to the 9/11 attacks. Both were proven FALSE.

You seem to be the one "confusing" Iraq and Afghanistan. One (Afghanistan) is part of the real War on Terror, and no Democrat objects to it. The other (Iraq) has nothing to do with the War on Terror, and is taking all our forces AWAY from fighting real terrorists. We're trying to police a sectarian civil war in Iraq, not fight Al Qaeda.

Pull out of Iraq, and use those forces for precision strikes against worldwide Al Qaeda and other terror camps. Go after the people who actually attacked us!

Answer 8

No that's no the whole truth there sparky and you damn well know it, and by the way screw you there WERE NO WMD'S even the DOD admits you tard, now onward, remember tidbits like this or is it more convenient to forget them?
From USA Today: Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaeda links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.
Cheney contended that al-Qaeda was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion.

Or how about the headline in this link?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1881740.stm

or this from WAPO in July of '04
As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." Bush, asked on Tuesday to verify or qualify that claim, defended it by pointing to Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has taken credit for a wave of attacks in Iraq.

Nice try and also what about Isreal's UN Violations if Iraq deserves to be attacked what about Isreal whose track record is far worse

Answer 9

You are saying that the invasion and occupation of Iraq constitute international war crimes.

By James Conachy
27 February 2003

Forty-three Australian experts in international law and human rights legislation have issued a declaration that an invasion of Iraq will be an open breach of international law and a crime against humanity, even if it takes place with the authorisation of the UN Security Council. The statement concisely argues that any Australian participation in a war on Iraq—as part of the Bush administration’s “coalition of the willing”—will make the government of Prime Minister John Howard and Australian military personnel liable for prosecution in the International Criminal Court.

Submitted as an open letter to Australian newspapers and published yesterday by the Sydney Morning Herald, the signatories include Professor Chris Sidoti of the Human Rights Council of Australia; Sir Ronald Wilson, a former High Court judge and the President of the Human Rights Commission; Simon Rice, the president of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights; the directors of several university centres for human rights law; prominent barristers; and lecturers at Australia’s most prestigious law schools.

The legal experts reject outright the justifications for war being made by the American, British and Australian governments as a violation of the UN Charter, under which there are only two grounds for the use of force in international conflicts. As they explained: “The first, enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, allows force to be used in self-defence. The attack must be actual or imminent.

“The second basis is when the UN Security Council authorises the use of force as a collective response to the use or threat of force. However, the Security Council is bound by the terms of the UN Charter and can authorise the use of force only if there is evidence that there is an actual threat to the peace (in this case, by Iraq) and that this threat cannot be averted by any means short of force (such as negotiation and further weapons inspections).”

Having outlined the legal basis for war, the declaration concluded: “Members of the ‘coalition of the willing’, including Australia, have not yet presented any persuasive arguments that an invasion of Iraq can be justified at international law.” Moreover, as the authors pointed out, the doctrine of “pre-emptive strike” elaborated by the Bush administration represents a fundamental repudiation of the UN Charter.

Answer 10

Look Einstein, Israel at the time of our invasion were breaking more UN resolutions than Iraq, and that is quantifiable FACT, something Bush has FAILED to produce in regards to justifying the Iraq invasion, and yes the Ba'ath party were ruthless killers, the same as EVERY other Iraqi Government of the past 70 years. That is the way they do politics out there, Military Coup followed by suppression and assassination of opposing factions. how the hell Bush ever for one minute thought he was going to give the Iraqi's a warped western style democracy that they have never had or in fact wanted, is beyond my comprehension.