liberals unite!

College Confidential Community
81

<p>thank you, devils67</p>

<p>It was a matter of time before we had to go back into Iraq. Better sooner than later before the threats completely materialized. Even Clinton realized Iraq was a threat and he would have done the exact same thing if he were in the same situation as Bush (given his actions previously when Iraq violated UN sanctions). Look up some liberal quotes on Iraq before they realized going against Bush (and America) was the only way they could have a shot in the 2004 (and now 2008) elections.</p>

<p>"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998</p>

<p>"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 </p>

<p>"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002</p>

<p>"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 </p>

<p>"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002</p>

<p>"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002</p>

<p>"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002</p>

<p>"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003</p>

<p>THE LIBERALS LIED, THOUSANDS DIED!!!</p>

82

<p>I thought we were done talking about the war. So, what do these quotes prove? I already knew that many politician thought Saddam was a threat. However, Bush shouldn't have declared war until he had sure fire proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The liberals lied? Bush SAID there were weapons of mass destruction. Well, we never found them. So the Bush administration LIED! And we should've been focusing PRIMARILY on Alqueida. Osama attacks the United States, therefore we go to war with Saddam? That was a bad decision, I don't see how conservatives can argue this was an intelligent decision. His priorities were in the wrong place, and why do you think so many other countries like France didn;t support us, or the UN, because it was an impulsive, stupid, rash decision! Please someone else post.</p>

83

<p>I agree completely with atomicfusion. Fact is almost ALL politicians agreed Iraq needed to be dealt with. No one thought it would become as difficult a war with this many casualties though. Persian Gulf War, we swept through Iraq with minimal casualties, but we never finished the job. Now that we've had lots of casualties, everyone likes to second guess the whole war. It is like playing Monday Morning Quarterback. </p>

<p>The only reason the liberals are against the war now is to get votes from misinformed people who think farenheight 911 tells them the truth about their government. As seen by those quotes, all of them would have done what Bush did, a decision that seemed to be a good one at the time.</p>

84

<p>there are liberals who arent politicans! Liberals are against it because they think it is wrong. They probably would not have declared a freakin war without any proof that they had weapons of mass destruction. They would focus on the most significant problem at hand, Alqueida capturing Osama Bin Laden. And these Republican politicians can pretend to be all patriotic pro-the war in Iraq, but they would not send their families to Iraq and fight for their country. This war is not worth all of the American troops being killed. And I am not second guessing the war because I never agreed with it to begin with.</p>

85

<p>Liberals, in general, had no problem going into Afganastan. We thought that was a good idea. Not all, but many.</p>

<p>And, while it may have seemed a "good idea" to into Iraq at the time to some, so muhc of what we were told was untrue, and not just be mistake, but with purpose.</p>

<p>And when you use the quotes, remember, this is information Bushes government gave to those people, which, in many cases was false. So those people trusted their President and his staff. </p>

<p>Many believed he still had WMD cause we were told he did by Bush and Powell and RIce. But he didn't.</p>

<p>Was it a mistake to trust our President? I think yes. If you check the dates on your quotes, they where when we were all being information about WMD, Nuclear Weapons, etc. In the years after, it has been shown that much of the justification presented at the time was distorted.</p>

86

<p>exactly,citygirlsmom. You know, it seems no matter how much we try to change the topic, the war in Iraq is the issue that gets everyone most rallied up. We could keep talking about this, OR we could finally talk about another issue. W/e.</p>

87

<p>"remember, this is information Bushes government gave to those people"</p>

<p>I didn't realize that Bush had his own "government." I believe all of those people who made those quotes were part of his "government." </p>

<p>I still think Iraq had something. We gave them plenty of time to get rid of it. Why else would they have kicked the weapons inspectors out so many times? Does that make sense?</p>

<p>Again I mentioned WWII before with what could have happened. What if we left Iraq alone until they started a nuclear war in the mid east? Then everyone would be saying how we should have done something about Iraq long before. It is easy to play Monday Morning Quarterback. That is why I am 100% in favor of prevention.</p>

88

<p>devils67...would you go to Iraq? Seriouslly, if you are so for this war, would you go? And if not, why not? Age is not an issue. Many people with families and babies are there. If you are under 18, you can get your parents permission...so would you go?</p>

<p>And I am glad you think that had something. And if they got rid of it, wasn't that the point?</p>

<p>So would you go, devils67. </p>

<p>I would not and I would not want my children to.</p>

89

<p>greendayfan< </p>

<p>My D went to JSA at Georgetown for three weeks...she had the best time. If you like politics, check them out!!</p>

90

<p>And didn't we set off nuclear weapons on another country? Aren't we the only country that ever has? </p>

<p>And devils56, Bush and his people controlled the information, gave what they deemed necessary to the Senators, the Un, the press and the American People. He who controls information has the power.</p>

91

<p>thank you citygirlsmom! i cant post right now- i will later, but you just summed up everything perfectly :)</p>

92

<p>
[quote]
And didn't we set off nuclear weapons on another country? Aren't we the only country that ever has?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I love the undertones of America-bashing in that. Yes, we did drop 2 a-bombs on Japan, but it saved millions of lives and ended a war (and probably helped deter nuclear war in the future once the world saw the massive scale of an a-bomb). Japan was fighting till death; they were completely devoted to the cause before the a-bombs were dropped. Would you rather have not dropped the a-bombs and had a full scale invasion of Japan? Killing millions on both sides in the process and totally destroying their country? Lol, liberals really don't think things through sometimes.</p>

<p>
[quote]
devils67...would you go to Iraq? Seriouslly, if you are so for this war, would you go? And if not, why not? Age is not an issue. Many people with families and babies are there. If you are under 18, you can get your parents permission...so would you go?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Who cares if you don't want your children to go? It is their decision. All of those fighting in Iraq made a CHOICE to go into the military to defend their country. No one was forced into the military. Also, many soldiers in Iraq (I'm not saying all, but many) agree with the war and are proud to fight in it. Don't insult them by saying they are all just pawns. Liberals talk about our troops like they're mentally insane people or something (by acting like they can't make their own choices and they don't know what they're saying, but still trying to act like they support them and are trying to save them).</p>

93

<p>I really don't understand the point of the liberal thread? Just said Debate then i'll accept it.lol</p>

94

<p>If Bush can become President, maybe Howard Stern can too :D</p>

95

<p>I think there is a strong correlation between Yale GPA and presidents. I mean look at it, Bush had a higher GPA than Kerry and he wins the election! Coincidence? I think not...</p>

96

<p>sorry atomicfusion, but i really don't think that one's college gpa determines whether/not one can become president. anyway, did they take the exact same classes with the exact same teachers? no. gpas are completely subjective. having a higher gpa than someone else does NOT necessarily make you the smarter one OR the one better suited for running a country. coincidence that bush had a higher gpa and won the election? yes
plus, it's completely irrelevant to the subject at hand</p>

<p>now instead, why don't we look at what both bush and kerry had accomplished in terms of politics prior to the election.
- kerry graduated from yale and served in vietnam, earning many honors
- he went to law school&became a prosecutor, fighting against gangs and organized crime
- elected to lieutenant governor
- elected to the senate and reelected three times
now let's look at bush...
- went to yale: how? because his dad was the friggin president!
- became governor: how? because his dad was the friggin president!
(i'm not even going to mention the years inbetween..)</p>

<p>I love the undertones of America-bashing in that [atomic bombs]</p>

<p>That's not America-bashing. It's criticism. as a democracy, we not only have the right- we have the DUTY- to criticize our government when we believe it's at fault and to state our own beliefs. this concept is what makes the us the greatest democratic nation.
I'm not going2 go way into the atomic bombs bcuz they're long past and they're not the topic of conversation right now. just please, don't try to imply that we saved millions of japanese people and their country. more than 100,000 japanese were killed and the deadly radiation reached hundreds of thousands more. the bombings launched us into this current arms race with the ussr, which is WHY nuclear destruction is such a threat nowadays.</p>

<p>I have to say that I'm really insulted by your comments on liberals and the troops. Just because we don't support the war does NOT mean we don't support the troops. those are two totally different things. It is incredibly rude of you to say that we think the troops are "mentally insane or something". i'm not even going to dignify that comment with a real response..</p>

<p>The bush administration is filled with liars. maybe bush isn't such a bad person, but his advisors are incredibly corrupt. why don't you defend karl rove while you're at it...</p>

97

<p>I never said you thought the troops were insane, I was saying you treated them like one would treat an insane person in some ways. Or a mentally retarded person for that matter.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The bush administration is filled with liars. maybe bush isn't such a bad person, but his advisors are incredibly corrupt. why don't you defend karl rove while you're at it...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wow, you just realized that politicans are corrupt? OMG, NO WAY!?!?!?! Instead of just trying to bash Bush and his administation at all costs, you should realize that a lot of politicians are corrupt, no matter what their affiliations are.</p>

<p>Also, the a-bombs did save millions of lives. They did prevent another one from being used once everyone witnessed the destruction. USSR didn't want to provoke the US for fear of getting nuked next, and then vice versa. Mutal assured destruction was only realized once the awesome force of the a-bomb was witnessed for the first time for the whole world to see (not in testing). Also, the widespread radiation was not completely known until after hiroshima and nagasaki, which just added to the fear of the a-bombs and helped stabilize the world.</p>

98

<p>in other news, reid has recently been found to have taken gobs of money from lobbyists.</p>

99

<p>please, of course i know that the vast majority of politicians are corrupt, regardless of political affiliations. plenty of presidents/senators/etc, both democrats and republicans, have been total screwups. but the bush administration is just unbelievable sometimes.
does someone want to take over this debate now? lol please? i think i'm getting a little tired of politics. atomicfusion, we may not see eye2eye on these things, but i respect ur beliefs and it's always good (for me at least) to hear different ideas from my own. so--er yeah, tata for now</p>

100

<p>I state a fact and am called an America Basher..mymy</p>

<p>Can't state facts without being an America Basher. We also had slaves, we also didn't let women vote until 1920.</p>

<p>We also put a man on the moon. </p>

<p>So I would like to know why discussing the history of our great country is America Bashing.</p>

<p>We have done some terrible things throughout our history. We have also done some great things. </p>

<p>If we are not free to discuss both, then having a revolution was a waste of time</p>