A question for all liberal posters...

[@DCGoldPants]

I don't think you'll find a person here who thinks Saddam should of be in power.

I just question the timing. How about the Gov't finishes the job in Afganistan 1st. How are things going over there? The Iraq situation overshadows this one so much.......its still a mess over there.

[Funkyalligator]

Cskin...I really hope that you aren't suggesting that the hispanics that come across the border are primarily democrats...not true if they vote they tend to vote more republican.......

As for the war....I frankly don't care about the humanitarian reasons behind it....I was against the war strictly for economic reasons......I would much prefered to spend the money completely pacifying afghanistan before we did anything else......additionally I also felt....rightly so that companies connected with the administration would make out like bandits esepcially when dealing with the oil production in Iraq....

[Fred Jones]

Well since the question was posed to liberals.

I have to point out that I am currently high up in a tree in California protesting the abuse of the environment and trying to protect the red squirral from extinction. I have been up here for three days already. Luckily, my fellow protestors provide me with fresh batteries for my notebook computer.

The world’s problem you say concerning Iraq. The Balkans are the world’s problem. Lots of strife in Africa. Different rebel groups in S. American countries would like to overthrow their governments. IRAN is a bigger problem than Iraq. They have WMDs, they support terrorism, and they disrupt Middle East policy. When are we going to invade them? Iraq should have been handled differently.

Sjinhan brings up a good point about the NK situation. Bush foreign policy is not one of cooperation and diplomacy, but one of pure force like it or leave it. As I have said before it’s about balance. Going into Afghanistan was a good move and still is. It was a good use of force. Clinton didn’t use enough force, but Bush uses to much. Mix use of force with diplomacy. His dealings with Europe are just plain wrong. Yes, hold them accountable to fight terrorism, but don’t call them names and critisize some of the European countries when they don’t toe the line.

Equality, a powerful presence in the Middle East, I disagree. A powerful presence implies that we have solidified the governement in Iraq and the people are generally supporting it. You will always have some malcontents, but current number seems a bit high. The administration says that the majority of people support the change. From the daily killings and protests to the shutting down of a newspaper, it doesn’t look like it.

Cskin, I agree with you, close the borders and kick all the illegals out. A conservative I am concerning immigration, but that is for another thread.

And lastly, Bush moved resources that were hunting Bin Laden to Iraq to fight the more. After finding Saddam, the administration moved a number of those resources back to Afghanistan, but that was a lot of lost time.

[Bang]

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that terrorism out of the middle east directed at western nations is nothing new. It's been going on for several decades, and it's gotten nothing but worse.

Well, remember when you were a kid, and some other kid figured out you wouldn't fight back if he smacked you upside the head? He smacked you upside the head every day, and generally it escalated if you never did anything about it.

These little rat ****s in the middle east have been at this for a long time, and whatever their reasons are, I don't feel like getting killed because of it.

they now have absolutely demonstrated an ability and willingnesss to commit heinous acts of war on our soil.

Iraq?

Whether Bush had an agenda or not is beside the point.

9/11 changes everything. All bets are off. Why Iraq? It's a HUGE land mass right dead in the middle of the hornet's nest.

We have now planted our military there, and basically pointed a big gigantic gun in the face of syria and other nations who would assist in committing such acts. Now if they do, they know we're right there at the door. Believe it or not, it does have an effect, reegardless of what the evening news tells you. Remember, if there's dissension about the war, the job of the news media is easier. They play up negatives quite a bit, because stirring up the pot makes news that they can report.

The enemy hasn't laid down, as the attacks in Spain show, and the continuing resistance in Iraq. That's why it's called a war. The other side tends to fight back. It's up to this side to have enough sack to finish the job once started.

Does anyone think that if we pulled out now we would come away secure? Think they'd stop blowing things up or trying to hijack planes?

Am I a liberal. No.

Am I a conservative? No.

I prefer to think for myself, and I can't stand those who toe the party line for no other sake than the party said so. I think that is close minded and very dangerous to society.

However, I do believe that in this situation, much much much more than just Iraq and Saddam Hussein are behind the reasonings for all this.

And unless they prove that the US gov't had something to do with 9/11 so they could get rich off a war and Bush could go after Hussein, than I have to say this war is justified and necessary.

~Bang

[KevinthePRF]

Posting a late answer to original question.

An iminent strike on our nation, which in all the information I've witnessed, Iraq II does not fit the criteria.

[MrWill]

Amen to the immigration comment, Cskin. Anyone here support Bushs move to legalize mexican illegal aliens? Bush tries to create cheap labor for corporations here in the us, while at the same time supporting work done cheaper outside of the US. By global standards we are not a very populated country.......is there any reason for unemployment to be at record numbers with the state of US technology being what it is? I don't think so. Bush is not on our side.

[skinsSB2005]

Your question is insulting. Just because someone is Liberal does not lower their concern for country and family. In fact, I would argue that Liberals seek creative methods of dealing with the world and even local issues while Conservatives seem to believe that using military force equals strong leadership. In that case Hitler was a strong leader. If you want me to name all the Democrats who have fought for our country I will and you come up with a list of Republicans who are better Americans and who fought for our country and families.

Damn right I'm a Liberal too.......

Go skins.

[webnarc]

I would be in favor of going to war if a country had weapons of mass distruction and was going to use them; but isn't this a fault with all liberals, they want the smoking gun and not the smoke and mirrors ?

It's a decent question, but there are conservatives who don't agree with the Iraq war, so the way you word it sort of rules out their participation in the thread.

You know what I mean? To post a reply implies that you are a liberal and, as such, all the bad things that a liberal is; things more sinister than open-minded, objective and alturistic, things like being a "butt pirate", a "lier", a fallicy abuser, a "euro weenie" or a "Klintonite" (okay, that's not a quote, I made that one up).

It may be sufficient to say that a liberal would go to war for exactly the same reasons why a conservative would go to war, they just have different thresholds for the justification of violence and they have a different understanding of what constitutes proof .

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by jbooma

So you don't care if one of our allies were attacked

Jbooma, did you not see the word "allies" in my post--a post that you QUOTED?