Why do Liberals prefer to live under Islamic fascism?

Question

They oppose a war against terrorism. They think Bush is more evil then Bin Ladin and his terrorists. They want to protect terrorists that call americans from overseas. They don't want to do anything to prevent Iran from building a nuke. Keith Oberman (the biggest idiot since Michael Moore) actually said Bush initiated the war in Iraq.

How could Bush have initiated them when noone can know where a terrorist is hiding every minute of the day? Even the U.S. soldiers in Iraq have trouble finding them. How could Bush know from thousands of miles away?

If you were so much against the war from the beginning then why were you so supportive of it 4 years ago, most of you. Hypocrits.

a lot of insults but no anwers (2nd part of my question) how can you initiate an attack if you didnt know you where the enemy is?

Liberals always change the subject. Why are you bring wmd into it? That ways the last Iraq war. The one when we were accually fighting against the Iraqis not with them.

peter k- if there wasn't an american revolution there wouldn't be a war in Iraq either. Whats your point?

showtunes are you a blithering idiot or illitarate? Bush didn't start the war that we are in now. When your friends with your enemy and both have a new enemy then it's not the same war. The invasion which Bush IS responsable for was a success (dancing in the streets) The war we are in now was started by non-iraqis mostly from Iran. Bush should have seen that as a possibility but he isn't responsible.

Answer 1

Liberals don't prefer Islamic facism
to
Bush's style of facism

We don't like any kind of facism

How could Bush know where terrorists are from 1000's of miles away?

He and Cheney both said they KNEW EXACTLY where the WMD's that DIDN'T EXIST WERE

Besides

Bush doesn't care where these terrorists are, HAVEN'T YOU BEEN LISTENING TO HIM?

FLIP
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
Washington Post, 9/17/01, UPI: Bush said he wants accused terrorist leader Osama bin Laden "dead or alive.” “I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
AP, 12/14/01: President Bush pledged anew Friday that Osama bin Laden will be taken "dead or alive."

FLOP:
Capturing OBL no longer a priority:
G.W. Bush, 3/13/02: I don't know where Bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

Answer 2

"How could Bush have initiated them when noone can know where a terrorist is hiding every minute of the day? Even the U.S. soldiers in Iraq have trouble finding them. How could Bush know from thousands of miles away?"

Are you serious? So if Bush decides to attack China to get rid of the terrorist it would be ok since he couldnt know better? That is easily one of the dumbest thing Ive ever read, and I spent an hour this morning reading all of Bush's Executive Orders...

By the way, there is a huge difference between supporting an enemy, and not letting your gov't oppress you for the "greater good"
______

I answered your second part by implication. If you dont know where the enemy is and you attack, you have initiated the war. If you are actively fighting without knowing the location of the enemy, you have initiated the war in that location. Bush brought the war to Iraq by invading. Read Generation Kill (very objective actually). They point out that the first people killed in Iraq were Saudi's who were shuttled in solely to fight the US military that Bush sent!
___

Edit:
He is responsible. Day one of the Iraqi invasion had us fighting the Saudi's. As soon as we entered Iraq pretending it had to do with terrorism we called them there to fight us.
Moreover, Dick Cheney warned in the 90's what would happen if we took out Sadaam. The CIA warned Bush what would happen before his Iraq invasion. Both were right. He chose to ignore what very informed people said (I dispise Cheney, but he's right very frequently); all he had to do was listen to the people with more info than him and this tragedy would have been averted.

Answer 3

You are making several false assumptions.

First, that liberals oppose fighting against terrorism. Everyone wants to see terrorism end.

But that requires actual effective planning and implementation. Our current activities are not stopping or even reducing terrorism -- in fact, according to Pentagon estimates, the terrorists that attacked us before are stronger now than at any time in the past 6 years. So, what people oppose is the wasted effort that is NOT actually having an impact on terrorism.

As for initiating the war in Iraq -- that's public record. Bush went on record and said he was attacking Iraq. How can anyone argue that the US attacked Iraq? And the US knew at the time that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq -- that's why we attacked them in Afghanistan most of a year earlier.

As for Iran building a nuclear weapon -- that's a concern. But there is still no evidence that they are doing so. Just speculation. And while that's valid grounds for sanctions, it's not valid grounds for another unilateral invasion.

And your idea that the wiretapping issue is about protecting terrorists just shows that you are not paying attention to the legal issues. The Constitution and federal law (at the time) prohibits listening to Americans -- regardless of who they are talking to. So, the issue is the US govt violating its own laws, when there was no valid need to do so. Everything the govt wanted to do -- every wiretap -- could have been done legally. It just wasn't, because Bush didn't want to bother following the laws.

The issues are not as you present them, which is why your presumptions and conclusions are both incorrect.

Answer 4

Why do Republicans pretend to be morons? Why is it that Republicans support a president and party that abandoned the war on terror and spent the US into bankruptcy in order to triple the value of Haliburton stock.

How is this for a completely meaningless and gibberish sentence?

"How could Bush have initiated them when noone can know where a terrorist is hiding every minute of the day?"

Bush forged documents in an attempt to justify a war for which he knew that there was no valid justification and launched occupation for which he knew that there was no end. Just so that he could syphon public tax dollars to Haliburton. Of course he "initiated" the war. Even the most rabid American-hater amongsth the Republicons do not dispute that.

Answer 5

little question Islam is taking on the international in spite of the shown fact that that is all on the subject of the tip of western civilization Fascism can keep society from having undesirable demographics controlling us Socialism is terrific FOR all people MAKING under $50,000 A 3 hundred and sixty 5 days once you're making quite a few funds. capitalism works terrific the US is exempt from Islam infiltration in that lots of the rich muslims go the the US to flee for non secular dogma. the damaging muslims visit europe for low paying jobs and refuse to conform to western lifestyle

Answer 6

Firstly your title question is nonsense.
Secondly, without Bush, there would have been no war in Iraq and many thousands of US lives would not have been lost.

Answer 7

Why are neo-cons such scared pansies that they are willing to give up all of their freedoms at the drop of a hat?

Why are neo-cons so easily manipulated by fearmongering?

Why do neo-cons want to live in a society where the government spies on it's own citizens?

I guess, in short, why are neo-cons such simpering puss*** who are afraid of anything and everything and run around like Chicken Littles trying to make everyone else as afraid as they are?

Answer 8

I don't believe they do.

Many of them don't believe the threat is as serious as Bush says, or they believe his policies to address terrorism are ineffective and/or harmful.

I don't agree with them - I think complacency or underestimating the threat can get us killed - but i don't think that the vast majority of them favor living under Sharia law.

Answer 9

Well that is about as true as "Conservatives eat live babies, kill poor people for amusement, rape donkeys, and generally defecate on any moral or decent institution they can".

So I like this make stuff up that has no basis in reality time...it's fun..kinda like the day dreaming of a child.

Answer 10

this kind of thinking is nothing new.even when the communists existed during the clinton years, the famous 'better red than dead' used to be presched as well until president reagan ended that without firing a shot