Democrats, when is war necessary?

Question

Terrorist hit us on 9/11. We attacked them in Afghanistan, the terrorists fled to Iraq and we followed them. If they flee to Iran we should keep following them until terrorism is no longer acceptable to the rest of the world

Answer 1

"The terrorists fled to Iraq". You friggin moron. It's more like we went to Iraq and the terrorists set up operations there because we destabilized the country.

Answer 2

The fallacy in your question lies here.

"We attacked them in Afghanistan, the terrorists fled to Iraq and we followed them."

That is an absolute lie. Other than Hussien's government paying Palestinian terrorist's families, which is true... his government had no ties with Al Qaeda and were opposed to the Al Qaeda agenda.

If anything, the terrorist movement followed the US into Iraq. Our elimination of the Baathist state created a power vacuum in the country and Al Qaeda stepped up to fill it. The continued occupation of Iraq has spawned home grown terrorists and attracted fighters from surrounding countries to fight what they perceive as American aggression.

War is necessary when provoked or attacked. Afghanistan was necessary. Unfortunately, the job there isn't finished and Bin Laden remains less of a killer and more of an afterthought in the eyes of the administration. If I were a relative of someone killed in 9/11, I would be incinced over the lack of concern the Bush administration has for finding the mastermind of 9/11.

Answer 3

While I'm not a Democrat, I am an Isolationist and am against all wars, except for purely defensive ones.

I oppose the Iraq War and I now recognize that the Afghanistan War is unsound as way (the proper way to deal with bin Laden is through Letters of Marque and Reprisal).

There was absolutely no link between Iraq and 9/11. Al-Qaida hated Saddam and the only reason they are in Iraq is because we are. Al-Qaida consists mostly of Saudi Arabians, and Osama is in Pakistan, so shouldn't we also attack them?

You Neo-Cons are absolute fools. Do you actually seriously believe that Iraq was linked to Al-Qaida or that there were WMDs in Iraq? Do you seriously believe the same lies about Iran and Syria? How stupid can you get? Those claims are patently absurd.

What we need to do is to bring all our troops home. Adherence to a policy of Imperialism (instead of the proper sound policy of Isolationism) leads to blowback, such as the attack on 9/11. Adherence to a policy of Isolationism leads to perpetual peace and prosperity.

Answer 4

That would be funny if it wasn't so sad that people actually believe it.

The terrorists never fled to Iraq. A new wing of al-qaeda surfaced in Iraq AFTER we invaded because Saddam was no longer there to keep terrorism out, as he had done for so long. The terror organization responsible for 9/11 is still in Afghanistan.

You really do not know your current events at all, or have been seriously duped by the GOP spin machine.

Answer 5

Afghanistan... we didn't invade Iraq because "terrorists fled " there. We invaded over WMDs. Terrorists went to Pakistan. They did not go to Iraq until the US troops invaded Iraq. This is just a fact.

Afghanistan was justified though and we should have stayed there and put more pressure on Pakistan to place troop movements in that country.

I am not a Democrat but the majority of Democrat senators agreed with the invasion of Afghanistan (and Iraq for that matter; they just feel this administration manipulated the pretense for the war). Your obvious hatred of Democrats have obscured your ability to be rational. That's okay but let me give you some advice... try to be objective. One party is not good and the other is bad. I know life is easy to see the world in black and white but it isn't realistic.

Answer 6

Afghanistan was a justified war that we should have stuck with whole heartedly. Now the terrorists have regrouped and are as strong as before 911 and it doesn't appear that anybody is bothering them too much. The terrorists in Iraq followed US there, not the other way around. Say what you will about Saddam Hussein, but he didn't allow foreign terrorists to tread on his turf.

Answer 7

The terrorists did not flee to Iraq. Terror is in every single nation state around the world. We must think creatively about it instead of what we are doing now.

Answer 8

Looking at all our wars since 1900, who was president, etc:

1917, WW1, Wilson, democrat, the USA lost 116,708 soldiers. For what? I'm not sure.

1941, WW2, FDR, democrat, the USA lost 407,316 soldiers. FDR had been president for 10 years when Pearl Harbor was bombed. Can we say "foreigh policy blunder"?

1950, Korean War, Truman, democrat. The USA lost 36,914
soldiers, so we can have South Korea and drive KIAs. Was it worth it?

1964, Viet Nam War, Johnson, democrat. The USA lost 58,169 soldiers.

1983, Invasion of Granada, Reagan, republican. The USA lost 19 soldiers. It kept Cuba from taking over that island, and perhaps more.

1991, Persion Gulf War, Bush 1, republican. The USA lost 269 soldiers. Liberated Kuwait, and stopped Saddam from conquerring the middle east.

2002, Afganistan, Bush 2, republican. The USA has lost 350+. Liberated Afganistan, eliminated Al Qaeda safe haven.

2004, Iraq, Bush 2, republican. The USA has lost 3,500+. Its a venue for our continued war with Al Qaeda, who has vowed to destroy us, and has done everything they can to do so.

The wars the democrats have gotten us into have cost 619,107 soldiers their lives (but at least we have the KIA). The wars the republicans have gotten us into have cost 4,138+ lives. These wars have kept us from being attacked since 2001.

I'd say democrats think war is necessary when they're in power, the war will cost hundreds of thousands of soldiers lives, and there will be no purpose served by it.

Answer 9

They were not in Iraq until after we got there we created them a safe haven there. When are you people going to learn this how stupid can you be even the administration now says there was no connection between Saddam and osama. Everybody was in favor of us attacking Afghanistan, but not Iraq.

Answer 10

Oh what a bunch of crap. They ran to Iraq and we followed them? Turn off Rush Limbaugh and get a damn clue. Now, for your question. It was necessary in Afghanistan and maybe necessary in Iraq. In Iraq I have a problem. I feel it is necessary to try and win the damn thing which we are not. it has turned into a police action. Turn our troops loose and win it or get the hell out.