Liberals need to get beyond reflexive opposition to Iraq

Originally posted by EzInKy


The US supported Saddam for the same reasons it supported the Soviets during WW2. There was a common enemy.

Yeah the Anti Saddam lot where EVIL as hell werent they?
 
Originally posted by Cactus_Jack


Yeah the Anti Saddam lot where EVIL as hell werent they?

An enemy doesn't have to evil to be an enemy. The US fought a couple of wars against the Brits yet there are very few in the US who catagerize them as anything but down right nice people. Saddam was courted as a possible ally against both the Soviet Union and the Islamic Fundamentalists in Iran. After the Cold War ended (yeah, we won and Europe is now united), he and other puppets like him are no longer necessary.
 
Originally posted by Laughing Gull
would you want to live under a radical Islamic regime?

didn't think so.

I think its a safe bet that the only people who would want to live under a radical Islamic regime are radical islamists themselves. I don't think the majority of Iraqis fit that category.
I wouldn't like to live in a radical capitalistic society like the American either, but how the American people want to live is none of my business. And the Americans can not decide how the Iraqi people want to live. If an election is organized, we can find out what the Iraqi people want.

Originally posted by Laughing Gull
edit: I'd also like to point out that Islamic Radicals would hardly wait around for an election to give them permission to rule a country, when they feel like they have the authority of God behind them. They, as a minority, would simply take controll and kill all the infidels (people who disagree with them) that stood in their way. because its what they say Allah commands them to do.
I don't think a minority of Islamic Radicals would be able to kill all the America lovers who apparently are the vast majority:rolleyes:, but killing shouldn't be necessary as I believe the occupation forces are able to organize an election before they leave. Sadly it seems like they are not going to have an election in foreseeable future after all. Is it because Bush fears that they will not elect a US friendly government:satan:?
 
Originally posted by Pikachu

I wouldn't like to live in a radical capitalistic society like the American either, but how the American people want to live is none of my business. And the Americans can not decide how the Iraqi people want to live. If an election is organized, we can find out what the Iraqi people want.


I don't think a minority of Islamic Radicals would be able to kill all the America lovers who apparently are the vast majority:rolleyes:, but killing shouldn't be necessary as I believe the occupation forces are able to organize an election before they leave. Sadly it seems like they are not going to have an election in foreseeable future after all. Is it because Bush fears that they will not elect a US friendly government:satan:?

One would hope they would be at least as friendy as France or Germany.
 
Originally posted by Pikachu

I wouldn't like to live in a radical capitalistic society like the American either, but how the American people want to live is none of my business.

Where do you live? Canada?
 
Originally posted by Pikachu



I don't think a minority of Islamic Radicals would be able to kill all the America lovers who apparently are the vast majority:rolleyes:, but killing shouldn't be necessary as I believe the occupation forces are able to organize an election before they leave. Sadly it seems like they are not going to have an election in foreseeable future after all. Is it because Bush fears that they will not elect a US friendly government:satan:?


The radicals wouldn't have to kill all of the "America lovers" because most of those people would be silent out of fear of losing their lives.
 
Hey

I always wondered why people with "liberal" values don't support this war. You seem to support civil liberties, democracy etc. but when there is a war that can have no other end but to bring such things to a people brutalized by dictators you complain. So we didn't go to war for the reasons you want, the end is the same. Congratulate yourselves, finally an endeavor that we can undertake that satisfies the wants of both the right (whatever you thing those are, I don't think they difer all that much from the left anyways) and the left to provide an end everyone likes. People are argueing over semantics.

As for the liberals accurately predicting what would happen "We are going to have a war where people will die, the enemy country is destroyed, and we will get bogged down in a rebuilding process." Awesome. Brilliant. You predicted a war that would kill people, destroy what is on the batlefield, and would cost alot to rebuild. Why didn't I realize this. The Republicans knew all of this just as much as you, and said so, the differance is they prefer to think it is leading to a good end. The Democrats simply prefer to be pesemistic becausse while we did something that is totally in line with their professed ideology, doesn't have their name on it.

The "major war" (a war that had less than three full Army divisions isn't major) was over in May. It has been six months and people are complaining about left over remnant attacks, lack of elections, and all the craters not yet repaired. What timeline are you operating on? I admit that the Republicans were optimitic to a degree, but only as much as their opponets are pessimistic. This is what all politicians and parties do, exagerate their positions. After living in America for a few years you should be able to apply the appropriate filter to political jargon. Anyone who believed either and expected normalcy in Iraq in less than a year were delusional.

-Pat
 
Back
Top Bottom