Quote Originally Posted by bhallg2k
I don't know any liberals who are upset about what's happening in Iraq. I don't know anyone who didn't think that after Saddam's removal things wouldn't be better. It only makes sense that if you topple a brutal dictator, that his constituents will be better off.

Our problem stems from the fact that we were LIED TO in order to drum up support for the war. The whole idea behind WMDs, Iraq being a threat to America, Cheney's and Rumsfeld's subtle intimations that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, that's why we're pissed off. All of those turned out to be false. And we, as liberals, felt that additional diplomatic measures needed to be taken, not only with Iraq itself, but with the world in general, before we launched into a pre-emptive war.

We're pissed off because as the reasoning for war changed, as it became more about "bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people," we never once turned our eyes to the other humanitarian atrocities taking place around the globle. Where are we in Africa? South America? Eastern Europe?

We're pissed off because that massive part of our foreign policy is not uniform, as foreing policy absolutely has to be. Not only is it inconsistent, it's dangerous. Who are we now to influence other countries not to participate in pre-emptive war since we've done it ourselves? Hypothetically speaking, doesn't our new stance give Canada and Mexico every right to invade us if they decide to manufacture reasons why we're a threat to them, as we did with Iraq?

We're pissed off because while W was off playin' in the sand, North Korea's practically been waving their arms, saying, "Look at us; we've got nukes!" So if we're really out to protect ourselves, why are we not invading North Korea? And if we're really humanitarians, why are we not freeing the millions of North Koreans who are starving or in forced labor camps and who have no freedom whatsoever?

I'll even give Republicans a money reason: Where's all that Iraqi oil money that was supposed to pay for their reconstruction by now? Why are we still footing the bill?

Here's one for you fiscal conservatives out there: Why, if we have a huge deficit and are still having to pay for operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, is W still handing out massive tax cuts? How does that balance?

Bottom line, we were lied to by the highest level of our government and those lies didn't even make sense. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz all knew that if it was only about "freedom and democracy," Americans by in large would never, ever go for it.

Iraq has been a clusterfuck from start to finish. It doesn't matter how free they are now or how free they will continue to be, that will never change. And the 1,600 U.S. soldiers who died for it will never come back.
Wow, bhall2k, you make the point i have been trying to make along! All the issues we argue about are null and void compared to suffering in Africa, South America, and southeast Asia!

However, I still (of course) disagree with you on the whole Iraq war thing...

Sure, Bush lied to the American people about Iraq. Ya know what? I'm cool with that! In his shoes I would have done the same, although i would have sent troops to many many more locations than just Iraq. I would have sent troops to sudan to stop the genocide of thousands, for one thing...

Tell me this.... I am sure you agree with me, bhall2k, that the American people are really quite ignorant. So if you had to lie to them in order to stop a ruthless dictator from opressing millions, and at the same increase your country's prosperity, that would be perfectly acceptable in my own mind. Thats what this war is about, by the way, the prosperity of not only the US but the entire industrialized world. A stable middle east is of great interest to all petrolium-consuming countries.