How liberals really think?????

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Gravity, Jun 23, 2006.

  1. Gravity

    Gravity #winning

    Lets all discuss how Liberals really think about war. Why do liberals really want america out of Iraq? Could it be the fact that most liberals in america are politicans, wealthy men & women, or movie stars who find the TAXES going towards the WAR increasingly bothersome?

    I know liberals don't give a dam about humanitarian issues, Becuase if they did they would know their ideal "CUT & RUN" is hypocritical. Shiites would undoubtingly be murdered. Al-qaeda/taliban would then easily coup the newly appointed democartic Iraqi government and Civil war would break-out in afghanistan. I reiterate liberals LOSS OF MONEY seems to be the most logically real reason for the "CUT & RUN" Ideal.

    I am in no way, shape, or form a conservative, right-winger, neo-conservative, far-right winger or republican, Nor am I a liberal, democrat, far-leftist, neoliberalist, or left winger. So don't try to box me.

    lets just dicuss my theology like civilized people.
     
  2. bruschetta

    bruschetta Member

    Liberals do not condone "cut & run".
    Liberals are not as worried about taxes as the right-wingers are... so that argument doesn't really make much sense.

    Liberals are more inclined to not start needless wars in the first place for selfish reasons.
     
  3. streamlight

    streamlight Member

    My signature says what you need to know about liberals.
     
  4. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    When you resort to such feeble, reactionary rhetoric, how can you say you're any better than the reactionary liberals you're attacking. Being against the war in Iraq has nothing to do with being a liberal. If you cannot look at things objectively, without putting a label on everything, you're never going to see the truth. You're simply going to be a reactionary ignoramus whose viewpoints and opinions have been equally instilled by the media as they are with the liberals. After all, the media does everything they can to pander to both sides, whose talking points have all been molded by the same corrupt system. So if you're going to embrace the neocon rhetoric that is put out there to polarize the public, how is that any better than what the liberals are doing in their rhetoric, which serves the same purpose?

    The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the security of America, and is doing everything to ensure the economic destruction of this country. Do you know how much money is being spent on this war? Do you even care? I am sure you will once mom and dad are out of work and can no longer afford to feed and clothe you.

    And if you are so gung-ho on the war, what are you doing here when you should be over in Iraq fighting along with the rest of the cannon fodder in uniform? Talk is cheap when you're just a little pussy sitting behind mommy and daddy's computer screen.

    Grow up! Wake up!
     
  5. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    OK, thing is that not all those that opposed the invasion are arguing for a policy of cut and run. The problem is that the stupidity of the Bush Admin has made that the most likely.

    My position from the beginning was that the dishonesty of the Bush Admin in going into Iraq (it wasn’t Saddam, WDM’s or even oil per say it was the neo-cons belief that holding Iraq would be good for the US strategically interests) that meant it was never going to go well.

    It fucked up from the beginning by lying and by defying world opinion. But it’s major fuck up was that they should have had the interests of the Iraq people at the top of the list and they did not.

    The Iraqis were meant to play the part of the gratefully liberated.

    They were meant to accept a puppet government of Rummy stooges.

    Fact is that the Bush admin in it’s arrogance and hubris fucked up the possibility of really helping the Iraqi people over and over and over again, because it acted in it’s own interests rather than the people it had supposedly ‘liberated’.

    Thing was that with every fuck up the situation came that bit more difficult to repair because one fuck often compounded another fuck up.

    Pissing off so many other governments before the invasion meant they were reluctant to help. If the Bush admin had eaten a huge chunk of humble pie it might have got the UN behind it (sacked Rummy, Cheney and the other neo-cons and putting US forces under a UN appointed commander). But the BA fucked up again and the moment passed.

    It is now in a hell of a situation (of it’s own making) but it still in my opinion has an obligation to the Iraqi people but those interests at this time just might be best served by the BA withdrawing US forces and paying for other countries to take part. This would cost the US dear in cash and prestige, but if it truly wishes to redeem the situation that is probably now the best option.
     
  6. SunLion

    SunLion Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Gravity, why aren't you over there fighting then?
     
  7. Green

    Green Iconoclastic

    Depends on the definition of "liberal". "Liberal" doesn't really mean anything anymore, but if it did its definition should include a person who does care to some extent for the good of others.

    Bourgeoisie Democratic Party liars don't count as liberals. The Democratic Party was liberal a long time ago, but not any more.
     
  8. Angel_Headed_Hipster

    Angel_Headed_Hipster Senior Member

    Yeah these are true statements, except the fact that Al-Queda was and still is a complete CIA operation to fundamentalize the middle east to give an excuse to invade sovereign countries. What we need to realize though is that it was the so called "conservatives" (Who are actually FARRR LEFT in their leaning, they want big government not small) who got us into this bullshit situation in the first place, and then all the whiny liberals voted for it too because they are all on the same side of the coin, cut & run is bad but is there really anyway to do anything without getting shat on? If we stay hundreds of innocent Americans who didn't need to die will, plus the same amount of Iraqi's would die anyway with a civil war, this civil war was inevitable, Saddam as bad as he was did have control over the region and the US government knew from day one if they took him out there would be a civil war between the three factions, and this was the plan all along. They love to go on TV and say how we screwed up and Saddam did need to be taken out but the planning got messed up and we have to be there for another 10 years....this is not a mistake this was planned so that huge military sharecroppers can make millions of this war, that permanent concrete military bases can be built their by halliburton, so Iraq, one of the most sovereign and stable countries of the middle east could be dismantled and divided as to carve it up for themselves, without Iraq instability there would be no way to get the oil, to build the bases, to make Billions of the no-bid contracts, etc. This isn't about Saddam or Democracy or anything like that, that's just the story the public have been told so they can feel good about this war and not question it.
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice